MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2952383194 · doi:10.4000/rsr.6091

La vulnérabilité engendre-t-elle une obligation morale ?

2019· article· fr· W2952383194 on OpenAlexaff
Dany Rondeau

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue des sciences religieuses · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Philosophy and Ethics
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dans son livre Protecting the Vulnerable, Robert Goodin défend la thèse de l’existence d’une responsabilité à l’égard de toutes les personnes vulnérables. L’intention de ce texte est de montrer comment il fonde cette responsabilité dans une théorie libérale des devoirs. La première partie expose l’argumentation par laquelle Goodin établit que la teneur normative des devoirs moraux ne réside pas dans la volonté, mais dans la vulnérabilité des personnes. La deuxième partie présente les grandes lignes de son Principe de protection des personnes vulnérables. La troisième partie argue que l’État est le premier responsable dans la protection des personnes vulnérables, car c’est lui qui possède le pouvoir d’action pour prévenir les relations d’exploitation qui causent la vulnérabilité moralement problématique. La quatrième partie présente trois raisons qui mettent en lumière l’intérêt actuel de la contribution de Goodin.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.031
Scholarly communication0.0070.009
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.145
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.233 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue des sciences religieusesSame topicPolitical Philosophy and EthicsFrench-language works237,207