Quelques perspectives de développement de l’étude empirique des conflits internationaux
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
The empirical study of international conflicts has in the last two decades undergone a remarkable development. Careful examination of results so far obtained can however only produce feelings of dissatisfaction. The few correlations uncovered are usually so limited in scope that it is difficult to draw any conclusions whatsoever from them. This essay first of all suggests certain possible developments for empirical research, especially in areas which have been most neglected. The author goes on to show that the road on which such works are embarked, no matter how interesting, contains radical limits which can only invalidate the claims of practitioners of the empirical analysis of international conflicts to an elaboration of a truly explanatory theory. It will only be possible to discover explanatory elements if one undertakes a theoretical leap consisting in reorienting the study of international conflicts. The broad outlines of such a theoretical reorientation are described in the last part of the essay.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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