Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’étude des clôtures de Ceuta et de Melilla laisse percevoir comment une politique gouvernementale entend concilier les objectifs affichés et les visées occultes. En effet, bien que le gouvernement espagnol ait sans cesse déclaré que les barrières des deux enclaves visent simplement à limiter l’immigration irrégulière, un examen minutieux des différents aspects de cette question conclut à l’existence d’autres objectifs derrière la construction de ces barrières. La politique espagnole tendant à fermer les frontières des deux enclaves participe d’une démarche contradictoire dans la région. Certes, depuis deux décennies, la Méditerranée regorge d’une multitude de projets de coopération culturelle et économique, mais de nouveaux murs matériels et virtuels, destinés à réaliser « la forteresse Europe », s’y sont également édifiés. Cet article entreprend l’étude des aspects controversés des clôtures de Ceuta et de Melilla comme frontières externes de l’Union européenne (ue). Il souligne ensuite le rôle en mutation des clôtures des deux enclaves.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".