Direito e democracia: retorno sobre a abordagem processual de Habermas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper develops the Habermasian thesis of 'mutual conditioning' between law and democracy, in a unity of understanding and action, aiming to contribute to its elucidation. From the Kantian theory of law, Habermas combines individual autonomywith public autonomy and elaborates a communicational version in which the modern political community, constituted by all social actors, perceives itself as a mutual intersubjectivity of positions in order to affirm, to make individual freedom grow and develop. Communicative action guarantees that plurals combine 'anonymously'; so asnot to harm the individual or individual freedom, recognizing, however, the tension existing in this communicative action, since the public space accessible to all must autonomously enable everyone to express their opinions. Habermas acknowledges theimpossibility of perfect 'consensus'; in a society built on the full autonomy of the co-societarians, which keeps communicational action permanently active. The legitimacy of 'law and democracy'; is formed in the public space with the equal participation of allsocial actors in order to 'signify' a legitimate legality. In effect, communicational action provides a democracy free from all forms of instrumentalization that will take the place once occupied by contractualism.
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 | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".