VULNÉRABILITÉ, DROIT ET AUTONOMIE. UN ESSAI SUR LE SUJET DE DROIT | DOI: 10.12818/P.0304-2340.2018V72P153
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How to understand the vulnerability of the individual?Moreover, how to understand it in the field of law?The author argues for an understanding where the individual must be understood in his/her autonomy and in hi/ her "dignity".He first analyzes the concept of "vulnerability" and its etymological root in medical science, and then insists on how individual autonomy is positioned in the legal field.The author insists that there are two basic vulnerabilities, one individual and the other relational, that the question of vulnerability must always be appreciated at the level of the individual self and for the sole benefit of the individual, and that the basic problem it is to never deny the autonomy of the individual for the benefit of heteronomy or even of paternalism / maternalism.As a result, he analyzes the question of vulnerability in the field of individuality, then in the public domain and finally with regard to the so-called "solidarity legislation" (assistance to the vulnerable), so as to ensure that the individual autonomy is always correctly taken into consideration, and that this can be validated by the vulnerable person, by the person one wishes to help.At the end of the article, the author insists that the law is not always the best way to help others, and that it is often more adequate to help the one who really wants to help others.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".