Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette étude s’emploie à analyser l’impact de la notion de frontière dans la mise en oeuvre politique du projet francophone. L’étude procède en deux temps. Elle observe tout d’abord comment la rhétorique propre au discours prononcé dans l’enceinte officielle de l’Organisation internationale de la Francophonie témoigne, à travers les effets d’inclusion et d’exclusion, de conceptions diverses du projet francophone. L’étude cherche ensuite à démontrer comment l’entreprise francophone se projette dans un espace complexe qui hésite entre respect de la frontière nationale et tentation d’un universalisme fortement imprégné de mythologie. Le mythe de Babel est ici mobilisé pour observer un univers de référence dans lequel se construit l’approche moderne du projet. L’étude en vient finalement à observer que le statut spécifique de la langue française est porteur de modernité, mais que pour proposer une voie viable, le projet francophone doit explorer de nouveaux territoires, en renonçant aux replis identitaires comme aux visions trop imprégnées d’idéologies.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".