MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3024759092 · doi:10.3917/caph1.160.0055

La démocratie épistémique : une perspective condorcétienne

2020· article· fr· W3024759092 on OpenAlexaff
Juliette Roussin

Bibliographic record

VenueCahiers philosophiques · 2020
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical and Literary Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCondorcet methodPhilosophyHumanitiesPolitical sciencePoliticsLawVoting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quelles sont les implications de la philosophie de Condorcet pour les théories épistémiques de la démocratie ? Ces dernières réduisent souvent l’argument épistémique de Condorcet en faveur de la démocratie au théorème du jury. Or le philosophe montre que c’est seulement quand elle devient le vecteur de l’indépendance politique, économique et intellectuelle des citoyens que ses vertus épistémiques se font jour. En se concentrant sur les procédures de décision susceptibles de favoriser de bons résultats politiques, les approches contemporaines ne proposent qu’une analyse partielle des embarras démocratiques, et se privent de bases pour un argument épistémique plausible en faveur de la démocratie.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.940
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCahiers philosophiquesSame topicHistorical and Literary StudiesFrench-language works237,207