Les processus d’unification politique. Analyse comparée de la Suisse et du Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
« Les processus d’unification politique. Analyse comparee de la Suisse et du Canada. »Cette comparaison binaire interroge les criteres typiques des morphologies suisse et canadienne, en termes d’Etats federaux democratiques. Comment devient-on un Etat federal democratique ? Restituant la genese des Etats federaux democratiques diachroniquement, on observe que les changements sociaux menent aux profondes mutations des systemes politiques et aux socles de valeurs, sur lesquels les institutions et les structures politiques se fondent. Partant ensuite des mecanismes de centralisation, de bureaucratisation, d’integration regionale et de democratisation, observes lors des mises en œuvre institutionnelles et structurelles, on explique la serie de processus d’etatisation, de democratisation et de federalisme, posee comme condition necessaire a l’unification politique en Suisse comme au Canada. Mais, si l’unite politique ne peut se passer d’une organisation sociale coherente et fondee en valeurs alors elle ne peut se passer d’une solidarite sociale sui generis. Interroger le lien social dans le processus d’unification politique, c’est penser la construction nationale et la cohesion morphologique sociale, pre-requis essentiels a l’unification politique. Ces approches correlent grâce a trois fonctions correspondantes que sont l’integration, la regulation et la legitimation regissant les diverses interactions aux niveaux macrosociologiques et mesosociologiques ainsi qu’entre l’ordre politique dependant de l’ordre social. L’unification politique depend des ces interactions constitutives de la coherence et de la cohesion morphologique.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".