MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138457471 · doi:10.3917/sestr.004.0097

La protection des infrastructures d’information critiques à travers le monde

2010· article· fr· W2138457471 on OpenAlex
Gérard Pardini

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSécurité et stratégie · 2010
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCybersecurity and Cyber Warfare Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’approche française en matière de protection des infrastructures vitales, précisée par Alain Coursaget dans ce numéro, est partagée par d’autres États qui ont en commun de dépendre de plus en plus de réseaux interconnectés, conférant une importance toute particulière aux infrastructures d’information. Parmi celles-ci, certains systèmes d’information seront qualifiés de « critiques » parce que leur interruption ou leur destruction pourrait causer un impact considérable sur la santé, la sûreté, la sécurité, le bien-être des citoyens, jusqu’au fonctionnement effectif de l’État ou de l’économie. Le Département Risques et Crises de l’INHESJ suit depuis plusieurs années les travaux de l’OCDE sur la thématique de la gouvernance de crise. Parmi les études récemment réalisées, celle sur l’analyse comparative des politiques de protection des infrastructures critiques d’information est particulièrement intéressante. Elle concerne sept pays : Australie, Canada, Corée, Japon, Pays-Bas, Royaume-Uni et États-Unis.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.583
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.273 · 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