El dilema democrático de la refrendación directa de los acuerdos de paz
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En este ensayo se explora el “dilema democrático” que surge en la refrendación directa de los acuerdos de paz, es decir, en las consultas adelantadas para que la ciudadanía apruebe o rechace el convenio alcanzado por las partes para la terminación de un conflicto. El dilema presenta dos cuernos, por un lado, es necesario que la comunidad afectada por el acuerdo lo refrende para su legitimidad y viabilidad, y por el otro lado, que los mecanismos democráticos de consulta directa tienen serias dificultades para adelantar tal refrendación. El objetivo principal de este estudio es proporcionar una caracterización del dilema que presente con claridad la complejidad que esta situación excepcional somete a prueba la teoría normativa de la democracia. Cabe mencionar que no se aspira a proporcionar una respuesta definitiva, pero si tratar de hacer justicia a las diferentes intuiciones morales representadas por cada uno de los retos del dilema y así dar algunos pasos hacia su disolución y resolución.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
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".