Les élections législatives de mars 1978 et la politique extérieure de la France
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The international aspect of electoral consultations is too often neglected by researchers. In the specific case of France, observation shows that international stakes have already played an important role in other circumstances (notably in 1973). In 1978, the confrontation opposing the majority in power and the leftist opposition was played out, in part, on international problems. The defeat of the left has certainly multiple causes ; but the rupture which weakened the opposition occurred, initially, because of questions of foreign policy ; as for the incumbent majority, it found in the continuity of foreign policy its best arguments with public opinion. Just as foreign policy was able to contribute, in a certain way, to electoral results, the latter could have a certain influence on the course of French foreign policy. This case study suggests the need for further comparative research in order to draw up a typology of electoral consultations, according to whether or not they involve an external stake, but also to define more precisely the ambiguous concept of foreign policy — which may not be reduced, as the French electoral campaign of 1978 proves, to problems of alliances and defense only.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".