MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128743460 · doi:10.3138/cjccj.47.1.15

Le renseignement: distinctions préliminaires

2005· article· fr· W2128743460 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice/La Revue canadienne de criminologie et de justice pénale · 2005
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntelligence, Security, War Strategy
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalInternational Centre for Comparative Criminology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyObligationPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article part du constat que la notion de renseignement est présentement trop polyvalente pour être utile. L'article tente de remédier cette imprécision. La thèse défendue est que le renseignement se définit moins par ses propriétés intrinsèques que par ses relations avec divers termes. Dans une première partie, l'auteur tente d'illustrer l'imprécision dans l'usage de la notion de renseignement en comparant celle-ci avec les notions connexes d'information, de savoir, de science, de preuve et de surveillance. Dans une seconde partie, l'article développe une théorie du renseignement en reliant celui-ci aux composantes suivantes : son producteur, son destinataire, son contenu et ses objets, son processus d'encodage et de décodage, le maintien du contact entre les divers acteurs d'un réseau de renseignement, ses cibles et finalement, ses sources et leur validité. L'article conclut en contrastant l'obligation de moyen et l'obligation de résultat dans le champ du renseignement.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.787
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.097
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it