MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999430977 · doi:10.7202/704125ar

Une lecture de l'attitude de l'Inde durant la crise du Golfe (Note)

2005· article· fr· W1999430977 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gilles Boquérat

Bibliographic record

VenueÉtudes internationales · 2005
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitics and Conflicts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Middle East
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les huit mois de la crise du Golfe, qui suivit l'invasion du Koweït par l'Irak, eut pour l'Inde d'abord des répercussions financières liées notamment au renchérissement de ses importations de pétrole et au rapatriement de ses travailleurs expatriés touchés par le conflit. Un surcoût qui survenait de plus à un moment où les grands équilibres économiques étaient déjà menacés. Si l'aventurisme de Saddam Hussein était condamnable, New Delhi devait pourtant se garder de prêter son concours à une coalition chapeautée par les États-Unis et dirigée contre un pays du monde islamique avec lequel les relations avaient été jusqu'alors fort amicales. L'Inde ne pouvait pas pour autant ignorer les nouveaux rapports de force issus de la fin de la guerre froide. En ménageant la chèvre et le chou, la diplomatie indienne prenait le risque de perdre toute crédibilité et d'être finalement marginalisée. Une possibilité d'autant plus grande que le pays traversait alors une grave crise politique. Cette fragilisation devait toutefois permettre l'élaboration de nouvelles stratégies et fit de la crise du Golfe une période charnière pendant laquelle un certain nombre d'axiomes, sur lesquels s'appuyait l'Inde depuis l'indépendance, furent remis en cause.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

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 head0.310
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉtudes internationalesSame topicPolitics and Conflicts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Middle EastFrench-language works237,207