L’antimissile de territoire comme mode de gouvernance technopolitique de la sécurité euro-atlantique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exclue des débats sécuritaires de l’Union européenne, abandonnée aux surenchères entre Washington et quelques capitales européennes, la question de l’établissement d’une défense antimissile de territoire euro-atlantique a pourtant été avalisée lors du sommet de Lisbonne de l’Otan de novembre 2010. Cette orientation peut surprendre, considérant le nombre limité de mises en oeuvre opérationnelles de la défense antimissile aux États-Unis. Elle peut de même susciter des interrogations sur le plan de l’architecture technologique et du commandement. Le présent article se propose, néanmoins, d’aborder la défense antimissile comme une technique de gouvernance par les instruments, mise en oeuvre par les États-Unis dans la perspective d’une construction d’alliances technologiques à l’échelle globale.
Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.
How this classification was reachedexpand
The three-model screen
all 5,600 screened works →All three models called this out of scope.
Political analysis of missile defense as a technopolitical governance instrument; technology and security politics, not scientific knowledge production.
It analyzes missile defense as a geopolitical governance technology.
IR/security analysis of Euro-Atlantic missile defence, not science studies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".