L’écrit comme pratique de sécuritisation : analyse des évolutions législatives sur la nationalité française
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article analyse le rôle de l’écrit législatif dans le processus de « sécuritisation » identitaire en France, en étudiant spécifiquement les évolutions législatives en matière de nationalité depuis la loi de 2003 « relative à la maîtrise de l’immigration, au séjour des étrangers en France et à la nationalité ». Il démontre que la loi, à travers sa dimension écrite et son cadre étatique légitimateur, agit aussi bien au commencement de la sécuritisation que dans sa finalisation. L’étude de la situation d’énonciation législative du corpus des quatre lois ayant fait évoluer les droits et les conditions d’accès à la nationalité française (2003, 2006, 2007, 2011) révèle que la sécuritisation opère un processus de légitimation à partir de mécanismes analogues au concept de « violence symbolique » de Pierre Bourdieu, c’est-à-dire à travers des actes d’énonciation sécuritisants non reconnus comme tels par l’audience.
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 | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".