MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2962754084 · doi:10.59488/rel.v1i1.24084

QUEM TEM MEDO DO POVO? O DEBATE ENTRE ÁGORAFOBIA POLÍTICA E ÁGORAFILIA POLÍTICA

2019· article· pt· W2962754084 on OpenAlexaff
Francis Dupuis‐Déri

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Estudos Libertários · 2019
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Economic Solidarity
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As pessoas têm a capacidade política de se autogovernarem, ou elas precisam ser governadas pela elite para "o bem comum"? Para o esclarecimento dessa questão, apresento dois conceitos: ágorafobia política e ágorafilia política. Começo, brevemente, explicando a tensão entre duas atitudes para as pessoas: o amor e o medo. Então, defini sistematicamente os argumentos e os contra-argumentos dos dois lados da controvérsia. O debate parece acabar em um impasse retórico, dado que tanto o povo quanto a elite podem ser vistos como irracionais, vulneráveis à demagogia e aos facciosos. Deixo claro, portanto, que a principal intenção não é demonstrar se as pessoas são confiáveis ou não no que diz respeito às suas capacidades políticas. Ao contrário, busco o reconhecimento de que esse debate contém uma luta política fundamental entre o desejo de dominação e o desejo de liberdade igualitária, assim como a disposição de distinguir o significado filosófico das experiências políticas democráticas e populares.

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)0.002
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 score0.712
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.021

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.268 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista Estudos LibertáriosSame topicSocial and Economic SolidarityFrench-language works237,207