L’ÉTAT DE DROIT AUX ÉTATS-UNIS : LE DÉBAT ENTRE LES FÉDÉRALISTES ET LES ANTI-FÉDÉRALISTES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aux États-Unis, à l’occasion de la délibération sur la Constitution de 1787, le débat entre les fédéralistes et les anti-fédéralistes a contribué à la pensée et à l’évolution de l’État de droit. Alors que les anti-fédéralistes proposaient de fonder le système politique sur la vertu civique et la participation des citoyens, les fédéralistes préconisaient plutôt la représentation du peuple. Tandis que les premiers prônaient la décentralisation et l’enchâssement de droits dans la constitution, les seconds s’en remettaient au fédéralisme et à la séparation des pouvoirs pour contrôler et limiter le pouvoir politique. Par-delà ces distinctions entre les idées des uns et des autres, la pensée américaine a participé à l’émergence du principe de l’État de droit en lui léguant l’importance de la délibération démocratique et le constitutionnalisme.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".