MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1845636054 · doi:10.4000/lisa.1601

L’impérialisme humanitaire de Michael Ignatieff : le cas d’un « liberal hawk »

2007· article· fr· W1845636054 on OpenAlex
Pierre Guerlain

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue LISA / LISA e-journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Peace and Security Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRhetorical questionPoliticsConsciencePolitical scienceLawPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Michael Ignatieff, a former Harvard professor who is now active in Canadian politics, represents a school of thought which may be called humanitarian imperialism or liberal imperialism whose most famous representative in Europe is Bernard Kouchner. He argues for US interventions in the world (Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq) on account of UN weakness and unwillingness to stop massacres or genocides. In his calls for the US to assume this new burden, Ignatieff mentions all the arguments usually invoked against empires and imperialism only to reject them in a rhetorical twist. He is one of the most articulate advocates of military intervention with a clear conscience. Though he often ends up in agreement with neoconservative or neoliberal imperialists his justifications are more intellectual and convoluted and therefore address a different audience.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.548
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.267 · 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