"The Reception of Peter Singerâs Theories in France"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Peter Singer's views on the status of animals, the sanctity of human life, and world poverty have attracted both attention and intense controversy in many Western countries, including the United States, Canada, and Germany.The reactions in France to his theories are less well-known.The purpose of this paper is to present an overview of critical responses to Singer by French academics and thinkers.How have they received Singer's contention that we must bring nonhuman animals within the sphere of moral concern?How has his claim been received according to which we must recognize that the worth of human life varies?Do French scholars agree with his utilitarian views on abortion, euthanasia, infanticide, his definition of the term "person"?Finally, is he considered in France as a brilliant and groundbreaking ethicist, as a dangerous extremist, or somewhere in between?
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| 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".