Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le projet d’une approche critique de la sécurité est devenu un domaine de recherche dynamique, donnant naissance à des sous-champs distincts tels que les études féministes de sécurité et les études critiques du terrorisme. Mais un nombre croissant de chercheurs critiques ont commencé à remettre en question les réalisations de ce programme de recherche au cours des dernières années. Ils soulignent la façon dont les discours critiques sur la sécurité prennent l’apparence d’une nouvelle orthodoxie et deviennent complices de la reproduction des rapports de pouvoir existants. D’autres vont plus loin encore et déclarent la « mort » des approches critiques de la sécurité. Dans cet article, je passe en revue ces débats émergents sur le goulot d’étranglement rencontré par les études critiques de la sécurité et je détaille les critiques concernant l’état actuel des études critiques de sécurité.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".