Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
It is not very well known that term order, which foreign policy practitioners often use to talk about international playing field, was actually coined by Norwegian zoologist Thorleif Schjelderup-Ebbe in 1922 to describe dominance hierarchy of hens.1 Clearly expression, as little flattering for diplomats as its origins may sound, captures a fundamental sociopolitical dynamic in world politics: practice of diplomacy takes place within a highly - though often unreflectively - structured social space in which hierarchy and stratification are rule, not exception. Formally, as well as informally, each player has a specific rank and role, attached to distinct ways of doing things, duties, and privileges. Often tacit but ever present in background of world politics, international pecking order forms, at from a practical point of view, backbone of diplomacy.This article looks for diplomatic pecking order where one might not expect to find it - inside multilateral international organizations. After all, given often deep-rooted relationships involved in international organizations like NATO or European Union, tightly knit multilateral dubs constitute what methodologists typically call least likely cases for exploration of international pecking order. In following pages, I delve into everyday life of permanent representatives (i.e., diplomats heading national missions to multilateral international organizations) to capture practical specificities of this form of diplomacy. Perm reps, as insiders call them, enjoy a rather unique diplomatic experience, which is well worth a specific inquiry - all more so, in fact, in that their sphere of competence is fast expanding in early 21st century due to ongoing multilateralization of world politics. Empirically, my main focus is on key skills and practical logics upon which practice of permanent representation is premised. To this purpose, I begin with diplomacy as a category of practice.2 I then examine it under light of selected socialtheoretical concepts derived from political sociology.I argue that being a permanent representative typically requires specific skills which, although not entirely exclusive to these diplomats, are solicited with a particular intensity in a multilateral setting. I first identify two specific features of multilateral diplomacy, groupness and nearness, which foster pecking order dynamics and turn community of practice into a world unto itself. Its many rules of game are in evidence in socialization dynamics and social sanctions that characterize work of permanent representation in international organization. In second section, 1 zoom in on main task of multilateral diplomacy - negotiation - and delineate some of its practical logics, including need to make things work, practices of joining consensus, reaching out, etc. Arguing that practices instantiate a working (pecking) order by clarifying various permanent representatives' rank and role around table, I identify basic skill of permanent representative as something Goffman calls of one's place. Finally, third section provides a short illustration based on case of Canada in United Nations pecking order. I conclude with a comment on possible professionalization of diplomat qua permanent representative in 21st century.THE SMALL WORLD OF PERMANENT REPRESENTATIONIt is by now pretty well established that diplomacy relies on a set of skills and dispositions generally learned in and through practice. Nicolson contends that common sense is essence of diplomacy; Satow equates practice with the application of intelligence and tact to conduct of official relations between governments of independent states; Kissinger asserts that diplomacy is an art, not a science; and Acheson contends that it involves a mysterious wisdom, too arcane for layman. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle