Les Global International Relations comme alternative à la discipline hégémonique. Le cas des Relations internationales en France
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
Where do French internationalists stand within the global discipline? This article demonstrates that international relations in France are not independent of, isolated from or peripheral to global trends. Data from the 2014 TRIP survey reveals that, while the discipline in France is distinguished from and even, in some respects, conflicts with the American mainstream, it nevertheless contributes in its way to Global International Relations (GIR). Based on linguistic, theoretical, methodological, epistemological and institutional dynamics differing from those that dominate the discipline in the United States, GIR is at once global and possesses significant local and/ or national foundations. In both theoretical and epistemological terms, French international relations is linked to this pluralist alternative by virtue of the concepts and disciplinary practices characteristic of French internationalists. By showing that the internationalists of the North can also, in their way, contribute to GIR, this article gives the notion new depth. ■
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 it