El modelo de “Democracia Abierta” de Helen Landemore frente a la tensión participación-deliberación.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En Open Democracy, Hélène Landemore presenta su modelo de democracia, la “democracia abierta”: un régimen en el cual el ejercicio del poder sea accesible a los ciudadanos ordinarios a través de formas novedosas de representación democrática. Se evaluará la crítica de Cristina Lafont, quien cuestiona el uso de los mini publics para la toma de decisiones políticas a través de la formulación de un dilema: o bien los mini publics derivan en un sistema elitista o bien ellos son superfluos. El debate se ancla y profundiza en la supuesta tensión entre la participación masiva y la deliberación basada en razones. Mi conclusión buscará mostrar que, si bien los argumentos de Lafont son atendibles, sostenerlos en términos de dilema es elegante y atractivo, pero no ineludible. Hay, además, modos, estrategias posibles para perseguir normativamente ambos ideales; se sostendrá, además, que el modelo de Open Democracy no es incompatible con esa búsqueda.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".