Au-delà des Études internationales : Les cas des Études globales et des Affaires internationales
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quels liens peut-on établir entre les Études globales (EG), les Affaires internationales (AI) et les Études internationales (ÉI) ? S’agit-il de rupture, d’élargissement ou de renouvellement ? Nous souhaitons montrer dans ce texte comment les EG et les AI, deux nouveaux programmes de formation universitaire qui se veulent interdisciplinaires et qui traitent eux aussi des enjeux internationaux, transnationaux et globaux, offrent une solution de rechange aux Études internationales. Si l’apport des Affaires internationales se situe au niveau de la professionnalisation de la formation, celui des Études globales loge du côté des perspectives théoriques et analytiques. À partir d’une étude de vingt programmes de maîtrise, nous montrerons comment les conditions d’émergence, l’organisation et l’évolution de ces programmes leur ont permis de se forger une identité qui les distingue des Études internationales.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 it