Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comment expliquer l’émergence et le déclin de mobilisations contestataires ? Afin de répondre à cette question, nous développons une critique du modèle du processus politique sur la base de la théorie des champs de Pierre Bourdieu. Partant de l’idée voulant qu’une multitude d’espaces institutionnels organisés selon des logiques différentes coexistent au sein de chaque société, nous proposons de remplacer la notion de structure des opportunités politiques, qui est au coeur du modèle du processus politique, par celle de structure des opportunités du champ (SOC). Il y aurait donc autant de SOC qu’il y a de champs et la structure des opportunités politiques ne serait qu’une structure d’opportunités parmi d’autres. Après avoir présenté le modèle du processus politique ainsi que la théorie des champs de Bourdieu, nous distinguons une dimension statique d’une dimension dynamique de la SOC et expliquons en quoi chacun des aspects contribue à l’émergence, à la croissance ou au déclin des mobilisations et de la contestation.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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".