La guerre russe en Tchétchénie : discours antiterroriste et légitimation de la violence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La « lutte contre le terrorisme » a été le principal argument avancé par l’État russe pour justifier la reprise de la guerre en Tchétchénie en 1999. L’analyse des politiques menées en son nom et des effets qu’elles ont produits en Tchétchénie, sur la société et le système politique russes, ainsi sur les relations de la Russie avec le monde extérieur révèle combien cette lutte contre le terrorisme s’inscrit dans ce pays dans un contexte beaucoup plus général. Il s’avère notamment que non seulement le climat international peut renforcer des objectifs internes fixés dans un cadre national, mais aussi que les évolutions constatées dans le contexte spécifique et exacerbé de la guerre en Tchétchénie peuvent éclairer des tendances plus générales au brouillage des frontières entre pratiques démocratiques et non démocratiques, justice ordinaire et droit d’exception.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".