Un paradigme arctique de sécurité ? Pour une lecture géopolitique du complexe régional de sécurité.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La question de la sécurité en Arctique fait régulièrement la une des journaux. Ancien épicentre stratégique, la région peine à se départir de cadres d’analyse traditionnels qui ne prennent pas en compte ses mutations récentes : changements climatiques, bien sûr, mais aussi ouverture progressive aux activités, intégration aux grands réseaux mondiaux… Ces mutations viennent largement renouveler les enjeux de sécurité dans la région. Alors que les sciences politiques et les Relations Internationales dominent les études de sécurité, un pan de littérature commence toutefois à émerger, s’attachant à remettre le territoire au cœur de l’analyse. Ce travail vient alors souligner la pertinence d’une analyse géopolitique de la sécurité dans la région, à la lumière des enejux actuels.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".