Les fondements de l’agir éthique : une hiérarchisation axiologique est-elle possible sans exclusion d’agent ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comme le soulignent Canto-Sperber et Ogien, plusieurs auteurs en philosophie morale soutiennent que les sources de la valeur morale, celles qui sous-tendent nos choix axiologiques et orientent notre agir éthique, sont irréductibles et ne peuvent être hiérarchisées dans une théorie qui aurait des prétentions universalistes. Si la critique du caractère absolu et universaliste de certaines théories morales est fondée, cela exclut-il que l’on s’interroge sur le bien-fondé du partage de valeurs qui pourraient à la fois refléter et nourrir la commune humanité entre les personnes, tous horizons culturels confondus ? C’est cette question qui sera examinée ici dans le discours de la philosophie morale, notamment chez Nussbaum et Honneth, et dans le discours d’enseignants sur les valeurs. Reconnaissance de l’autre et empathie sont requises pour mettre en œuvre un socle de valeurs communes.
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 | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".