Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main aim of this work is to present the notion of democracy in the thought of the Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor. To do so, we start from the author’s critique of what we call liberal ‘atomist-procedural’ model of comprehension of democracy and we try to articulate an alternative model of comprehension that we call ‘liberal-republican’, which is considered by the philosopher as more receptive to freedom, pluralism and to the promotion of the common good. With this goal in mind, we first present Taylor’s analysis of the atomist anthropology that, so he understands, underlies most of hegemonic liberal theories in the West, an anthropology that the author links in its origins to the modern epistemological tradition at the base of a naturalistic perspective of science. To these atomist images of the human being and naturalistic of science, the philosopher opposes a conception of human agents as self-interpreting language animals that are situated in their time and relationships, as well as a comprehension of the social-political theory as a modality of self-understanding of the collective identity that focuses, essentially, on what is meaningful (conceptions of the good) to these agents. After this propaedeutic task, we dedicate ourselves to properly present Taylor’s interpretation of the ‘atomist-procedural’ liberalism and its weaknesses, as well as his comprehension of a different form of conceiving the democratic sociability that emerges from the author’s combination of variants of the theoretical languages of liberalism and republicanism. Having met this main objective, we propose as a closing point, to analyze elements of Brazilian political culture in dialogue with Taylor’s comprehension of democracy and of the political in general in order to clarify, to some extent, the democratic and undemocratic aspects of this culture. For this second task, we draw on interpreters of Brazilian social reality from different fields.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".