Les relations internationales et la crise de la pensée politique moderne selon Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Si c’est à partir de Thomas Hobbes que la distinction entre État et état de nature apparaît comme un point de départ à partir duquel il deviendra possible de faire reposer l’intelligibilité de l’ordre étatique qui se développe alors, ce n’est cependant qu’avec Jean-Jacques Rousseau que se fera véritablement jour le caractère constitutif de cette distinction. Avec Rousseau, la pensée politique moderne atteint un seuil critique alors même que les contradictions qui l’habitent semblent condamner les États à une guerre perpétuelle à laquelle aucun principe politique ne permettrait de mettre un terme. C’est ce seuil critique que nous entendons explorer dans cet article en nous attardant à la réflexion que Rousseau consacre au domaine des relations internationales. La prise en compte de ce domaine agirait comme un révélateur des contradictions qui traversent la pensée politique moderne.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".