Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este artículo aborda la manera en que se presenta la concepción del Estado de derecho en el análisis foucaultiano del ordoliberalismo. El argumento defiende la necesidad de vincular las ideas de los ordoliberales con respecto al Estado con el pensamiento político de Carl Schmitt para mostrar su carácter autoritario. Investigaciones que siguen el análisis foucaultiano han puesto énfasis en el hecho de que Foucault no prestó especial atención a la dimensión no democrática del neoliberalismo. Sin embargo, al mismo tiempo, inciden en desvincular el Estado neoliberal de una concepción autoritaria del ejercicio del poder. El artículo argumenta que, si se sitúan las posiciones ordoliberales a la luz de los debates en torno a la democracia de Weimar, resulta insoslayable la pulsión autoritaria inherente a su concepción del Estado de derecho. Para ello, se procede en tres pasos: primero, se expone la teoría ordoliberal del Estado que analiza Foucault; posteriormente, se muestra la dependencia de dicha teoría con respecto a la concepción schmittiana del Estado fuerte; y, finalmente, se señala cómo la ausencia de una referencia sustantiva a Schmitt conduce a Wendy Brown o a Christian Laval y Pierre Dardot a descartar el componente autoritario de la socavación neoliberal de la democracia.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".