Redéfinir démocratiquement les besoins pour planifier l’économie
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alors que la notion de besoin reste largement sous-théorisée au sein de la littérature sur les modèles économiques postcapitalistes, peu d’analyses sur les besoins remettent en question le capitalisme ou réfléchissent aux façons de satisfaire ceux-ci en dehors de ce système économique. Cet article propose de surmonter cette lacune en mettant en dialogue la riche littérature sur les besoins et celle sur les modèles de planification économique démocratique afin d’éclairer les manières de définir collectivement les besoins. Après un bref survol d’études sur les besoins à travers diverses disciplines, le cadre de la « lutte pour l’interprétation des besoins » de Nancy Fraser est mobilisé pour montrer comment ceux-ci peuvent être débattus dans l’arène démocratique. L’articulation de ces réflexions avec divers modèles de planification économique permet de combler certains angles morts concernant la définition démocratique des besoins.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 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".