MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076820594 · doi:10.7202/009907ar

S’opposer aux États-Unis au Conseil de sécurité

2005· article· fr· W2076820594 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
David Ambrosetti

Bibliographic record

VenueÉtudes internationales · 2005
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Peace and Security Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArgumentation theoryPolitical sciencePhilosophyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article rend compte des enjeux apparus au coeur des débats qui ont précédé l’adoption par le Conseil de sécurité des Nations Unies de la résolution 1422 sur la Cour pénale internationale, à partir d’une analyse de l’argumentation de la délégation française. Il éclaire la relation entre l’argumentation et le recours à la puissance dans les négociations multilatérales. Il conclut que l’argumentation précède la rationalité communicationnelle décrite pas Habermas, et peut la favoriser en entravant le recours à la puissance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.010
Scholarly communication0.0100.006
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉtudes internationalesSame topicGlobal Peace and Security DynamicsFrench-language works237,207