MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2890494043 · doi:10.14198/doxa2018.41.03

Describir normas: un enfoque pragmático

2018· article· es· W2890494043 on OpenAlex
Giovanni Tuzet

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDOXA Cuadernos de Filosofía del Derecho · 2018
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal processes and jurisprudence
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La distinción entre normas y proposiciones normativas es un lugar común en la teoría analítica del derecho, junto con la idea de que las segundas describen a las primeras. Pero pocos autores procuran especificar cuidadosamente en qué consiste la actividad de describir normas. Este trabajo intenta ser una contribución a la comprensión de esa cuestión, buscando distinguir diversos modos en que puede entenderse la descripción de normas jurídicas y preguntándose si algunos de ellos resultan más correctos o útiles que otros. En el texto se distinguen cuatro modos de descripción de normas y se sostiene que su corrección o utilidad está relacionada con el contexto comunicativo en que una descripción es ofrecida: es la interacción pragmática entre los hablantes lo que determina el nivel de información requerido y su utilidad para los objetivos que los participantes se proponen.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.759
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.005

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.290 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it