Le néo-institutionnalisme dans l’analyse comparée des processus de démocratisation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article procède à une revue critique de la contribution du néo-institutionnalisme à l’analyse comparée des processus de démocratisation. Cette perspective a provoqué une réorientation de la recherche en introduisant une variable institutionnelle renouvelée dans ce domaine où prévalaient des explications en termes de valeurs, de culture ou de pré-requis. L’article part de l’idée que 1) le néo-institutionnalisme comporte trois variantes qui fournissent chacune une perspective théorique relativement spécifique et 2) que la démocratisation se découpe en phases analytiques dont la compréhension fait appel à des outils différents. L’article expose alors la manière dont les modèles théoriques proposés par les trois néo-institutionnalismes sont appliqués à l’analyse de ces phases et discute de leur pertinence.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".