Bibliographic record
Abstract
Avant la crise financière de 2008, le Fonds monétaire international traversait une crise de légitimité qui se serait atténuée grâce à un certain « retour » de l’organisation suite à la crise. La légitimité est un concept relativement récent dans l’analyse des organisations internationales et l’appareil théorique développé depuis quelques années pour évaluer celles-ci n’a jamais été utilisé pour fournir une évaluation du FMI. Cet article propose une telle évaluation systématique des déterminants de la légitimité du FMI afin de voir, à partir d’une revue de la littérature récente, si le Fonds a retrouvé une légitimité perdue ou s’il doit plutôt envisager d’autres moyens pour ce faire. L’article conclut que la légitimité du Fonds est atteinte sur tous les plans et qu’un « renforcement systémique » pourrait être envisagé si l’organisation souhaite regagner une certaine légitimité. Before the global financial crisis of 2008, the International Monetary Fund went through a crisis of legitimacy that would be mitigated by a "return" of the organization following the crisis. Legitimacy is a relatively new concept in the analysis of international organizations and the theoretical apparatus developed in recent years to evaluate them has never been used to provide an assessment of the IMF. This paper proposes such a systematic evaluation of the determinants of the legitimacy of the IMF in order to see, from a review of recent literature, if the Fund has found a lost legitimacy or whether it should instead consider other means to this do. The article concludes that the Fund's legitimacy is achieved at all levels and that a "systemic reinforcement" could be considered if the organization wants to regain some legitimacy.
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 | 0.012 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.001 |
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".