Rationalité, non-rationalité et théorie prospective : un programme de recherche sur la gestion des crises internationales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The strength of rational choice theory and the decision models derived from its axiomatic base (e.g., expected utility, game theory, deterrence, etc.) has always depended on the degree to which the theory's underlying assumptions offer at least a close approximation of reality. Proponents of political psychology have compiled what appears to be an impressive body of evidence against the utility of theories derived from these assumptions. Decision-makers, particularly in a time of crisis, are either unwilling or unable to live up to the demands of rationality. Conflicting empirical evidence from rational choice theorists continues to fuel the debate. In the absence of any attempt to identify areas of consensus, theoretical progress on the question of how to effectively manage international crisis mil remain elusive. In the conviction that this ongoing debate has become counterproductive to the development of crisis management theory, the following paper attempts, in part, to identify areas of consensus and to develop an alternative research agenda around Prospect Theory.
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".