DEVELOPPEMENT INTERNATIONAL ET COMMUNICATION INTERCULTURELLE : UN TRAIT D’UNION OU UN SIMPLE POINT-VIRGULE?
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
Cet article porte sur le developpement international et la communication interculturelle. Il s’interroge sur l’arrimage que peuvent avoir ces deux termes. Sont-ils suffisamment agences pour qu’on parle d’un trait d’union, ou sont-ils deux entites distinctes necessitant que la metaphore ne soit reduite au point-virgule? Essentiellement, cet article tente de trouver des reponses en ce qui concerne le developpement international sous la perspective de la communication interculturelle : quelle place occupe-t-elle, quelle est la valeur qu’on lui accorde dans le contexte de la mondialisation et de l’elargissement des frontieres? Bref, la communication interculturelle est-elle un ingredient de succes et un incontournable du developpement international reussi? L’analyse d’un premier rapport sur le developpement de l’apres-2015 est offerte en guise de premiere reflexion sur cette interrelation, et ce, dans l’objectif de faire une etude plus exhaustive par la suite. This article focuses on international development and intercultural communication, and the link between these two concepts: are these two concepts similar enough to be joined by a hyphen, or are they separate entities so that the metaphor should be reduced to a semicolon? Essentially, this article attempts to find answers in regard to international development from the perspective of intercultural communication. What role does it play, what is its value in the context of globalization and the expansion of borders? In short, is intercultural communication an ingredient of success and a key to a successful international development? The analysis of a report on development post-2015 is offered as a first reflection on this relationship with the aim of producing a more comprehensive doctoral study later on.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it