MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033721538 · doi:10.3917/crii.041.0099

La guerre russe en Tchétchénie : discours antiterroriste et légitimation de la violence

2008· article· fr· W2033721538 on OpenAlex
Anne Le Huérou, Amandine Régamey

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCritique internationale · 2008
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Conflict and Governance
Canadian institutionsCentre Intégré de Santé et Services Sociaux de Chaudière-Appalache
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.839
Threshold uncertainty score0.973

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.350 · 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