Legitimacy and legality "Habermas questioning"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Habermas seeks to renew our understanding of "legitimacy" and "legality" by including their relationship and problematicism within a concept of law that is exclusively relevant to democratic processes. We suggest here thinking about this concept in three phases: first: defending legal modernity as a horizon for democratic self-legislation, second: by looking at legitimacy as a result of democratic processes, third: presenting the issue of legality as an issue related to democratic processes and in a dependent relationship with them. Finally, the author insists on the legal-philosophical contributions that this theory has made to rethink our legal modernity. The issues surrounding the issue of legitimacy and legality are still the focus of contemporary reflections in legal philosophy, so if we can admit that the problem involves a long and interesting history in which large sections of Western legal philosophy are drawn, then our contemporary philosophical tools, as well as our democratic experiences, seem to us today More conducive to understanding these issues intellectually. The benefit that Habermas's theory of legitimacy and legality inspires us with comes from his way of understanding law. Therefore, it is necessary - first of all - to clarify this concept before we can consider how it extends thereafter on the axis of legitimacy and finally on the axis of legality.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.057 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| 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".