MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024380131 · doi:10.7202/018276ar

Comment l’Union européenne en est-elle venue à cautionner la sécession monténégrine ?

2008· article· fr· W2024380131 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chantal Line Carpentier

Bibliographic record

VenueÉtudes internationales · 2008
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Identity, and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le Monténégro, dernier des ex-États fédérés yougoslaves à n’avoir pas fait sécession, réclamait l’exercice de ce droit consacré sur le plan régional européen par la Communauté européenne. C’est que celle-ci, par le simple biais de la procédure de la reconnaissance collective, était parvenue à faire admettre qu’un État fédéral puisse se dissoudre de fait. Cette possibilité impliquait donc l’existence pour les États fédérés d’un droit conditionnel de faire sécession dans le respect des frontières héritées de l’État fédéral. L’ue a donc, faute de mieux, usé de la promesse d’adhésion comme d’un soft power afin de faire inscrire le droit de sécession du Monténégro dans la Constitution fédérale, rendant par là inutile toute référence à un droit internationalement garanti et potentiellement déstabilisateur, puis elle a surveillé l’exercice de ce droit pour en authentifier le résultat. Le Monténégro, nouvel État « labellisé » par ses soins, est par conséquent rapidement devenu le 192e État membre de l’onu.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.162
Threshold uncertainty score0.321

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.289 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉtudes internationalesSame topicMigration, Identity, and HealthFrench-language works237,207