Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le présent article tente de saisir l’action politique du secrétariat de l’UNESCO vis-à-vis de la gestion de l’interface entre le commerce et la culture, ainsi que ses marges de manoeuvre face aux entrepreneurs de la diversité des expressions culturelles. Alors que la plupart des études relatives à cet enjeu supposent que le secrétariat général reste largement favorable au processus de l’élaboration et de la mise en oeuvre de la Convention sur la diversité culturelle, nous nous interrogeons ici sur les conditions – empiriquement sondées – qui permettent au secrétariat d’agir. Notre analyse démonte alors l’idée courante selon laquelle l’UNESCO était à l’avant-garde de la Convention et illustre les raisons pour lesquelles l’organisation a adopté une position conservatrice sur cette question et a mis en oeuvre un certain nombre de stratégies qui tiennent compte de logiques institutionnelles propres à l’UNESCO.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".