Le retour du juridique comme dimension constitutive des théories critiques des relations internationales ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans la discipline anglo-américaine des relations internationales (ri), la frontière entre l’étude des ri et celle du droit international (di) est devenue de plus en plus étanche au cours du 20e siècle. Les théories critiques, n’échappent pas à ce traitement instrumental du di. Si plusieurs tiennent un propos plutôt empirique sur le droit, d’autres développent des stratégies théoriques afin de faire du droit une dimension constitutive de leur théorie. On se propose ici d’explorer deux tentatives des théories critiques de développer une relation plus dynamique avec les catégories juridiques. La première est celle de Jürgen Habermas de renouveler une théorie cosmopolite des ri ; la seconde est celle de Benno Teschke de faire du droit une catégorie cognitive centrale pour une sociologie historique des ri articulée autour du concept de relations sociales de propriété.
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 | 0.012 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.058 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".