Lâargument de la pente glissante : analyse rhétorique de son usage en bioéthique (avortement et euthanasie)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette étude examine comment lâargument de la pente glissante est employé dans les débats sur lâavortement et sur lâeuthanasie. Lâhypothèse est la suivante : lâargument de la pente glissante peut être utilisé de manière fallacieuse dans certains cas, mais il peut également sâavérer raisonnable dans dâautres. Lâobjectif de cette étude est dâétudier certains arguments récurrents du discours bioéthique afin de tester leur pertinence, leur validité et leurs conséquences sur le plan philosophique. Cette étude se divise en deux parties. La première partie sâintéresse à lâusage de la pente glissante de type « sorite » dans le débat sur lâavortement. La deuxième partie se penche sur lâargument de la pente glissante complète telle quâil est employé dans le débat sur lâeuthanasie.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".