La rupture du consensus de Fort-Lamy et le changement du rapport de force dans l’espace CEMAC
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Et si la loi du plus riche était la meilleure ? Cet article tend à répondre à cette question, au regard de l’attitude d’un État dans le sous-système internationalcemac. Il choisit de décrire la dynamique de contestation d’un rapport de force par un État nouvellement enrichi et montre ainsi comment l’enrichissement autorise et favorise la contestation de la configuration antérieure du pouvoir et l’auto-affirmation d’un État comme nouveau leader sous-régional. Ce faisant, il restitue le lien que Gilpin avait établi entre l’enrichissement et les changements de rapport de force dans le système international. En montrant toutefois que le changement de rapport de force peut également se faire sans guerre hégémonique, il s’aligne derrière les études qui mettent en relation les logiques de puissance et les processus à vocation pacificatrice de l’intégration régionale ; la quête de puissance des États et leur présence au sein des organisations internationales.
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 | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
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".