Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le Cachemire, terre ancienne, est aujourd’hui la pomme de discorde entre l’Inde et le Pakistan. Cette dispute a commencé après la partition de l’Inde en 1947 quand le Cachemire était un État princier. Suite à une guerre entre l’Inde et le Pakistan, le Cachemire est divisé entre les deux belligérants. Depuis, chaque pays réclame le Cachemire entier. Il y a aussi des voix indépendantistes qui voudraient un Cachemire indépendant. Mais l’histoire de ce différend n’est pas aussi simple, car les deux pays ont des capacités nucléaires. D’ailleurs, les Cachemiris sont soumis aux violences des terroristes instrumentalisés par le Pakistan et aux exactions des forces de sécurité indiennes. Maintes tentatives de résolution de cette question ont échoué, mais les deux voisins continuent à faire des efforts pour la résoudre. Cet article va examiner les thèses des différents acteurs dans ce conflit que sont non seulement l’Inde, le Pakistan et les Cachemiris mais aussi l’Organisation des Nations Unies. Nous montrerons que le principe de l’autodétermination des peuples se heurte au principe de la souveraineté des États.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".