Le projet de Convention internationale sur la diversité culturelle comme réponse au marché mondial de la culture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Suite à la difficulté que rencontrent plusieurs pays à légitimer leurs politiques culturelles face à l’imposante stature des accords qui régissent la libéralisation du commerce international, le Canada et la France ont pris la décision de faire campagne afin de persuader les membres de la communauté internationale d’adopter une Convention internationale sur la diversité culturelle. Bien que l’unesco ait accepté de porter le flambeau, l’analyse des antécédents reliés à ce projet normatif démontre que les négociations internationales dans ce domaine conduisent au statu quo. Si le projet est légitime à bien des égards, la future convention risque avant tout de servir la protection des politiques culturelles nationales actuelles, sans pour autant entraver les mécanismes du marché mondial de la culture. Visant cet horizon, cet article tente de circonscrire les étapes principales qui ont conduit à la planification du projet et il cherche, par le fait même, à apporter un éclaircissement sur le principal débat culturel qui caractérise les relations internationales contemporaines.
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 | 0.009 | 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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".