MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3154350311 · doi:10.7202/1075744ar

Peut-on vraiment parler d’un « tournant radical » dans la pensée politique de Charles Taylor ?

2021· article· fr· W3154350311 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Guillaume St-Laurent

Bibliographic record

VenuePolitique et Sociétés · 2021
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPhilosophy, Sociology, Political Theory
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le double objectif de cet essai est de réfuter la thèse défendue par Bernard Gagnon d’un tournant radical dans la pensée politique de Charles Taylor et d’identifier le présupposé qui la gouverne. Une lecture plus approfondie de l’oeuvre de Taylor montre que celle-ci n’opère aucun tournant libéral à partir de 1995, mais se trouve seulement marquée par son adhésion au libéralisme politique qui émergeait à ce moment afin de mieux faire face au problème de la stabilité des démocraties constitutionnelles en contexte de pluralisme raisonnable.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.016
Scholarly communication0.0060.008
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.106
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolitique et SociétésSame topicPhilosophy, Sociology, Political TheoryFrench-language works237,207