Corporatisme paradigmatique, théories déontologiques et nouvel ordre mondial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article begins by pointing out the discrepancy between, on the one hand, a certain political discourse which refers to a so-called New World Order in highly moralistic terms and, on the other hand, brute facts which attest to the contrary (resurgence of violent regional conflicts, atomization of global structures). It then examines the possibilities for analysing this discrepancy from a critical perspective centered on ethical norms. This leads the author to review the principal ethical approaches elaborated within the study of international relations since the Second World War. Emphasis is put on a major epistemological cleavage between academic disciplines, perhaps the most important demarcation in ethical theory : the one separating deontological from non-deontological theories. The systematic rejection or marginalization of deontology by the « discipline » of International Relations can be explained in terms of objective cognitive interests which have established, paradigmatically a genuine spirit of corporatism within the discipline. This article endeavors to explain such corporatism with a view to helping start a truly pluridisciplinary debate on ethics in the post-cold-war era
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".