Le développement inégal et combiné des révolutions : une réflexion critique sur la relation interdisciplinaire entre sociologie historique et Relations internationales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article vise à initier le lectorat francophone au programme de recherche de la sociologie historique internationale (shi) et à la théorie du développement inégal et combiné (dic) comme tentative de synthèse transdisciplinaire entre sociologie historique et Relations internationales (ri). Cette tentative sera analysée à travers l’étude des révolutions, en tant qu’objet de recherche emblématique de la fracture épistémique entre les deux disciplines. Nous déconstruirons le projet transdisciplinaire du dic pour démontrer comment celui-ci ne répond pas aux objectifs initiaux de la shi en termes de sociologisation et d’historicisation des RI. Nous tenterons par la suite de réactiver ces objectifs et de reformuler la relation interdisciplinaire entre sociologie et ri au moyen d’une réflexion épistémologique et historiciste prenant comme base la théorie des relations sociales de propriété (trsp).
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 | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".