Bibliographic record
Abstract
Maintes philosophies contemporaines de la démocratie s’accordent pour donner à la délibération publique une place centrale dans la prise de décisions politiques légitimes. Cet accord masque toutefois un désaccord récurrent sur la source de sa valeur : elle est liée, selon les théories, à son effet sur les participants, à sa valeur expressive, à son équité ou encore à la qualité des décisions qu’elle produit. Ces visions concurrentes de la délibération démocratique ont des implications différentes et parfois contradictoires pour les pratiques et les institutions politiques. Cet article analyse ces justifications afin d’en éprouver la solidité et de clarifier leurs relations. Il défend une justification originale de la délibération démocratique, en montrant qu’elle traite équitablement les citoyens en tant qu’auditeurs, donc en tant que juges. S’il n’est pas sûr qu’elle favorise en général la prise de bonnes décisions, elle rend moins inégales les conditions sous lesquelles les citoyens peuvent porter un jugement 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 | 0.014 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.003 |
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.
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".