MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2762956188 · doi:10.3917/neg.028.0151

Le procès, c’est forcément un gagnant et un perdant ; ce que vise la conférence de règlement à l’amiable, ce sont deux gagnants !

2017· article· fr· W2762956188 on OpenAlexaff
François Rolland, Maurice Lemelin

Bibliographic record

VenueNégociations · 2017
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth, Medicine and Society
Canadian institutionsHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le 500e anniversaire du Prince (1513) invite à explorer la conception de la négociation chez Machiavel, telle qu’elle apparaît dans ses différentes œuvres, rédigées après avoir effectué de nombreuses missions diplomatiques. Pour Machiavel, préoccupé avant tout par l’ordre de la Cité et par la force sous sa forme extrême – la guerre –, la négociation n’est que seconde dans l’ordre de l’esprit ; mais elle n’est certainement pas secondaire dans l’ordre du réel. Elle est un outil important de l’action du Prince via ses ambassadeurs, pour lesquels Machiavel rédigea plusieurs instructions diplomatiques. Y transparaît une conception de la négociation associée à la ruse et dominée par la question du secret : comment conserver le sien et percer celui d’autrui.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient 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 score0.630
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0080.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.355 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNégociationsSame topicHealth, Medicine and SocietyFrench-language works237,207