Corpo e biodiritto: verso una nuova antropologia?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article reconstructs the historical and conceptual evolution of the legal status of the human body, moving from Jean-Pierre Baud’s notion of the “censorship of the body” to its present centrality in biolaw. Through an extensive excursus spanning Roman law (persona/res), canon law (jus in corpus), liberal modernity, Pandectist doctrine, nineteenth-century codifications and totalitarian systems, the paper illustrates how the legal category of the personprogressively overshadowed the material dimension of the body. Advances in biotechnology, information technology and biological preservation disrupt this traditional framework, requiring a redefinition of the boundaries between body, identity and legal availability. The analysis examines Rodotà’s concepts of the “enhanced body” and the “electronic body”, deep biometrics, neuro-rights and digital neuro-corporeality, showing how these innovations generate a profound “displacement and reformulation” (D’Aloia) of fundamental legal categories. The paper highlights the regulatory role of soft law in managing rapidly evolving bio-legal dynamics while safeguarding human dignity as a structural limit.A comparative overview (France, Germany, common-law jurisdictions, Québec and the Oviedo Convention) reveals the tension between non-commodification, the social function of the body and forms of controlled patrimonialisation. The article concludes by considering the emergence of a “new legal anthropology” capable of embracing the contemporary plurality of corporeal forms: biological, fragmented, preserved, digitalised and projected into virtual environments.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.039 | 0.066 |
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 it