Au-delà d’une fenêtre d’opportunité ? Expliquer le (re)cadrage des actions collectives de la diaspora tamoule depuis 2009
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nous observons, depuis la fin officielle du conflit sri lankais en 2009, un recadrage des actions collectives de la diaspora tamoule, caractérisé par un discours de reconnaissance du génocide. Ce dernier marque une rupture importante avec le discours d’indépendance des Tigres de libération de l’Eelam tamoul (LTTE), prédominant pendant le conflit. L’objectif de cet article est d’expliquer ce recadrage en mobilisant la littérature sur les mouvements sociaux et l’action collective, particulièrement les concepts de fenêtre d’opportunité et de structures mobilisatrices. À l’aide d’une analyse de cadrage qualitative, nous avons retracé, sur la plateforme Tamilnet.com, le discours de cinq acteurs collectifs diasporiques tamouls de 2000 à 2015. Nous soutenons ainsi que la fenêtre d’opportunité demeure à elle seule insuffisante pour expliquer le recadrage. En revanche, nous démontrons que ce changement s’explique plutôt par l’émergence de nouveaux acteurs collectifs, eux-mêmes porteurs d’un nouveau discours.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".