MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2610260938 · doi:10.7202/1034561ar

Le mouvement canadien pour la paix : dans ou contre l’État

2016· article· fr· W2610260938 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Éric Shragge

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Review of Community Development · 2016
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPeacebuilding and International Security
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sont comparées ici deux façons d’aborder la question du désarmement. L’une, modérée, est celle qui se manifeste le plus au Canada. À la longue, cependant, en mettant l’accent sur l’action parlementaire et en affirmant que la voie vers la paix doit être celle des négociations multilatérales entre États, elle va compromettre le mouvement pour le désarmement et agir à l’encontre de ses objectifs. L’autre façon par contre, radicale celle-là, privilégie une action extra-parlementaire et préconise les initiatives unilatérales, le non-alignement, l’opposition aux armes classiques et à l’intervention dans le Tiers-Monde. La méthode radicale est la seule méthode réaliste pour quiconque veut que les objectifs du désarmement et de la paix mondiale aient quelque chance d’être atteints.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.910
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.297 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Review of Community DevelopmentSame topicPeacebuilding and International SecurityFrench-language works237,207