Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Nitsan Chorev The World Health Organization between North and South Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2012Reviewed by Howard A. DoughtyThe United Nations is in trouble ... by definition ... in principle and in practice. For one thing, the member are not united. They attack one another with hideous weapons. They swindle one another with nefarious trade practices. They denigrate each other's cultures. They can't even agree to protect the air that they all breathe. What's more, the UN is inefficient and corrupt. It is a bloated home for bloviators. It passes pompous resolutions which no one takes seriously and, when a critical problem arises, it almost never finds a solution. Depending on the specific issue in question, it is either in the hands of a half-dozen or so major powers that treat it as a private club for their own benefit, or it is in the hands of irresponsible extremists including terrorists and terrorist sympathizers who use it as a platform to make outrageous statements mainly for propaganda purposes back home. It is worse than useless because it makes everything worse. What's even worse than that is the fact that it is now coming under the sway of overarching international corporations and regulatory organizations which thwart its nobler ideals and take advantage of its nepotism, cronyism and bureaucratic inertia.... or so it is said by critics who have been skeptical of the project at least since the dominant powers ceased to control the majority in the General Assembly, and probably long before. Even if this assessment were more false than true, however, it displays a level of frustration and pessimism that must be taken seriously by anyone who supports the UN's high-minded ideals in theory and in practice. For a moderately revealing account of UN statics, dynamics and political intrigue, see KofiAnnan's Interventions: A Life in War and Peace (2012) which, while plainly seeking to consolidate (or rescue) the UN Secretary-General's legacy, occasionally displays a measure of candor about the inherent limits of the United Nations as a political forum, an instrument of diplomatic intervention in conflict and an organization capable of making a difference in social, economic and humanitarian problems; but, we will get to such matters in due course.First, it is necessary to remind ourselves that, ever since the Peace of Westphalia (1648) forged a consensus among European powers about the nature and rights of sovereign nation-states, these generally well-defined political entities have been suspicious of alliances with friends and fretful of impending attacks by foes. They live in a largely lawless quasi-Hobbesian world. They fear domination by others, even as they seek to impose their influence on their neighbours, their regions and, in some obvious cases, the entire world. Despite the perils presented by other sovereign countries or alliances of countries, they are nevertheless frightened that a congress of large and small nations will conspire to violate their independence by imposing rules governing everything from ocean fishing to criminal law and presenting health care alternatives (birth control being only the most obvious) that various religions and cultures refuse to countenance. The countries that comprise the United Nations, whatever their ideologies, interests and b, commonly believe that they have indispensable rights as sovereign nations, and they are reluctant to compromise them even in what is demonstrably their own self-interest.Worries about foreign influence and about the potential power of an overriding international legislature, executive and judiciary is noticeably galling to the United States of America, which regularly affirms that it is exceptional and somehow above and beyond external control. Whether dealing with procedures to deal with crimes against humanity or eminently humane attempts to afford basic rights to the disabled that was based on its own Americans with Disabilities Act, US lawmakers are loathe to allow any international body to interfere with its citizens or its sovereign authority, no matter what the cause. …
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.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
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 | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,007 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».