MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2910460216 · doi:10.36517/arf.v10i20.39794

A tensao entre o atomismo radical liberal e a proposicao de uma politica holista do reconhecimento em Charles Taylor

2018· article· pt· W2910460216 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joel Decothé

Bibliographic record

VenueArgumentos - Revista de Filosofia · 2018
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Political Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.001
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 score0.748
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.003

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.298 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArgumentos - Revista de FilosofiaSame topicSocial and Political IssuesFrench-language works237,207