Les entrepreneurs de la prise de décision : l'exemple des politiques de sécurité nationale de l'administration G. W. Bush (2001–2004)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé.Comment expliquer la politique de sécurité nationale américaine, notamment l'évolution de certaines décisions en matière de politique étrangère et de sécurité intérieure ? Quels acteurs et quels facteurs rendent compte des résultats pour le moins controversés de celles-ci ? Au-delà des discours, des institutions et des énoncés, les choix de sécurité ont été l'œuvre de ceux que nous surnommons les « entrepreneurs » de la prise de décision. La question à laquelle cet article veut répondre est précisément de savoir qui sont ces « entrepreneurs » et comment ils ont réalisé cet objectif de transformation des politiques de sécurité des États-Unis. Trois prises de décision de la première administration Bush sont abordées : la guerre préventive en Irak, la redéfinition légale de la notion de torture, et l'institutionnalisation plus grande de la sécurité intérieure. Abstract.How are we to explain U.S. foreign policy, particularly policymaking on national security and homeland security, under the first administration of G. W. Bush? Who were the actors and what were the factors that produced what were, to say the least, controversial results? Looking beyond the speeches, statements and institutions, the security decisions can be seen as the work of “policy entrepreneurs.” This article considers who those entrepreneurs were and how they achieved their goal of transforming U.S. security policy. Three decisions are discussed: the pre-emptive war in Iraq, the legal redefinition of torture by the Bush administration, and the institutionalization of homeland security, in particular thePatriot Act.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".