MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1586556437 · doi:10.7202/014587ar

Le concept réfracté de la souveraineté et les États offshore

2007· article· fr· W1586556437 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueEurostudia · 2007
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAfrican Studies and Geopolitics
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Si on reconnaît le souverain par sa faculté à trancher de façon décisive dans les situations historiques exceptionnelles, force est d’admettre aujourd’hui que ce souverain ne procède pas toujours selon les dispositions des États de droit. Sont également souverains, et rivalisent avec les « démocraties », quand ils n’en sont pas ses complices, les tenants d’une souveraineté offshore. La moitié du stock mondial d’argent transite par les paradis judiciaires et fiscaux, ports francs ou zones franches où financiers, avocats, gestionnaires brassent des sommes d’argent inouïes au carrefour de la gestion d’activités industrielles, financières, mafieuses et criminogènes. Là, la finance la moins imputable est en effet souveraine. Avec ses propres entités « offshore », dont certaines font partie de l’Union des 25 (le Luxembourg, Chypre et Malte), l’Europe incarne par moment ce problème majeur. Entre les États, les tricheurs, les criminels et le peuple, le concept de « souveraineté » se trouve hors foyer.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.869
Threshold uncertainty score0.932

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.308 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it