Modes de relations étrangères. Élargir le champ des relations internationales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
De la même manière que l’étude de l’économie se sera développée en distinguant entre différents modes de production, l’étude des relations internationales pourrait elle aussi profiter d’une distinction entre modes de relations étrangères. De cette manière, l’étude des relations internationales pourrait peut-être être sauvée d’une virtuelle non-pertinence dans un monde au sein duquel les frontières de l’État apparaissent de plus en plus perméables, sauf pour les pauvres. Ainsi la préhistoire du système d’États westphalien, qui est partout autour de nous, pourrait-elle être plus convenablement intégrée dans notre compréhension de la politique mondiale et de l’économie politique mondiale. Dans cet article, deux modes de relations étrangères seront distingués : les relations tribales et les relations entre empire et nomades. Nous avancerons que loin d’avoir été dépassés par l’histoire des relations internationales, ces modes peuvent toujours éclairer la réalité contemporaine de la politique mondiale.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 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".