MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4360789512 · doi:10.7202/1097464ar

La théorie révisionniste de la guerre juste et la dépolitisation de la guerre

2023· article· fr· W4360789512 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Maíra Dos Santos Matthes Da Costa

Bibliographic record

VenuePhilosophiques · 2023
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicWar, Ethics, and Justification
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Au cours des dernières décennies, l’approche walzérienne de la guerre juste fit l’objet de vives critiques de la part de l’école révisionniste, qui est devenue l’approche dominante dans le débat universitaire portant sur ce sujet. Sa révision de la philosophie walzérienne de la guerre englobe deux points fondamentaux, à savoir : 1) le refus de comprendre la guerre comme une situation exceptionnelle dans laquelle nos jugements moraux se distingueraient significativement de ceux que l’on formule dans des contextes de paix ; 2) le refus du dualisme moral et de l’indépendance entre des ordres de jugements concernant le jus ad bellum et le jus in bello . Dans cet article, nous allons nous pencher sur ces deux points fondamentaux, pour en conclure qu’ils proposent une conception apolitique de la guerre.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.939
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.165
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhilosophiquesSame topicWar, Ethics, and JustificationFrench-language works237,207