Le républicanisme, une solution de rechange au libéralisme politique ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comment interpréter le renouveau du républicanisme ? Faut-il y voir, comme c’est souvent le cas, une tentative de formuler une véritable option de remplacement au libéralisme politique ? Le républicanisme est-il une théorie parfaitement distincte du libéralisme politique, capable de ne pas sombrer dans les mêmes écueils ? L’ambition de cet article est d’apporter des éléments de réponse à ces questions, en se focalisant sur le cas de la liberté de conscience. En faisant dialoguer le libéralisme politique de Rawls et le républicanisme critique de Cécile Laborde, j’entends montrer comment le républicanisme s’emploie à dépasser le libéralisme politique. Je souligne néanmoins les difficultés d’une interprétation perfectionniste du républicanisme et lui oppose une interprétation neutraliste. Cette interprétation neutraliste remet cependant en question l’idée selon laquelle le républicanisme est une option de rechange au libéralisme politique.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".