Structures intersubjectives et design des engagements internationaux
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La plupart des travaux traitant du design des engagements internationaux insistent sur la rationalité des acteurs, laquelle leur permet, face à plusieurs options, de choisir celle qui répond de façon optimale à leurs intérêts. Si ces travaux représentent une contribution remarquable à l’analyse des variations du comportement des États au sein des institutions internationales, ils négligent cependant le rôle des structures intersubjectives dans la construction des intérêts des États. À l’exception de quelques travaux théoriques qui soulignent cette limite d’ordre épistémologique, rares sont les études de cas qui s’y consacrent. Le propos central de cette étude qui s’inspire de la décision du Chili d’être membre associé au Mercosur est de démontrer que le design des engagements internationaux constitue certes un choix rationnel de la part des États, mais que ce choix est avant tout conditionné par les identités des États.
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 | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".