Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ce mémoire porte sur le problème de la légitimité de revendications émanant de multiples sources d’autorité (morales, politiques et légales). L’histoire conceptuelle du pluralisme montre que les significations qui lui sont attribuées sont à la fois contingentes et hétéroclites, leurs traductions en pratique étant loin d’être évidentes. Notre principal objectif est de remettre en question l’hypothèse selon laquelle l’approche de Charles Taylor est pluraliste. Si la reconnaissance d’une pluralité de biens joue un rôle fondamental dans la philosophie de Taylor, il est néanmoins nécessaire de montrer l’important clivage existant entre, d’une part, le fait d’accepter que nos conflits de valeurs soient souvent irréconciliables et, d’autre part, la volonté de trouver un moyen de mettre en harmonie des finalités concurrentes. Au terme de notre enquête, nous espérons mettre en lumière l’écart que nous constatons entre les questions reliées à la différence culturelle et les problèmes posés par des revendications d’autorité formulées par des associations formelles.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".