Vers un enracinement cosmopolite:Sciences et pratiques de la comparaison internationale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans un livre désormais classique, le politiste américain Sydney Tarrow soulignait les ressources internes mobilisées par les militant·e·s engagé·e·s dans des causes transnationales, évoquant\ndes formes de « cosmopolitisme enraciné ». En analysant le développement récent des circulations entre\nla France et le Québec, cet article montre, de manière symétrique, combien la comparaison internationale\nconstitue une dimension de plus en plus fréquente, voire obligée, de pratiques sociales et politiques\nancrées localement et/ou nationalement. Ainsi, et en dépit des multiples différences qui caractérisent\nces sociétés si souvent rapprochées, la France et le Québec tendent à former un vis-à-vis comparatif,\ndont les ressortissant·e·s, chercheur·e·s mais aussi et surtout fonctionnaires, militant·e·s, élu·e·s, journalistes – tendent à se comparer. Défendant une épistémologie réflexive, cet article invite donc les comparatistes savants à interroger leurs propres méthodes, en tenant compte des usages ordinaires de la\ncomparaison parmi leurs enquêté·e·s (qui se comparent, autant qu’on les compare), ainsi que des enjeux\ninternes de ce comparatisme désormais généralisé.
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 | 0.026 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.000 |
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.
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".