A tensao entre o atomismo radical liberal e a proposicao de uma politica holista do reconhecimento em Charles Taylor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article I undertake as the goal of work task to expose the tension between philosophical propositions of the politics of liberal radical, metaphysical proposition comes from the philosophical aspect that is configured as a holistic political philosophy of the recognition of the dignity of human life. To do so, bring up for discussion the political thought of Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor. Throughout the text I’m trying to rebuild, to some extent, the status of political debate among the political philosophies of both liberal slant of the atomism, as your opponent which is the perspective of classical communitarianism holistic. Then work with the notion of critical expressivista forged by Taylor, in his theory of action, which expresses a critical opposition radical liberal atomism policy, which is based on the notion of procedural rationality. Finally, pay attention to the argument that revolves around the proposition of a holistic policy of recognition, which must be inflected in favour of the axiom of ontological dignity of human life, which is embedded within a contemporary context, pluralistic history and widely multiculturalist.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".