MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2958911395 · doi:10.3917/ri.178.0119

Diplomatie scientifique et engagement du Japon dans l’Arctique. L’exemple du Conseil de l’Arctique

2019· article· fr· W2958911395 on OpenAlexaff
Julie Babin

Bibliographic record

VenueRelations internationales · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La diplomatie scientifique est aujourd’hui l’outil privilégié de coopération entre les États et les peuples arctiques et avec les États et institutions non-arctiques. Le Japon n’étant pas un État arctique, il doit user d’outils diplomatiques et commerciaux afin de participer aux débats de gouvernance présents et futurs de cette région. La longue tradition de recherche polaire est l’un des arguments principaux avancé par le gouvernement japonais pour légitimer son intérêt pour l’Arctique. L’investissement du Japon au Conseil de l’Arctique et dans ses groupes de travail illustre l’utilisation de cette diplomatie scientifique qui permet donc à un État non-arctique de participer à la principale plateforme de coopération et de collaboration de cette région.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.802
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRelations internationalesSame topicArctic and Russian Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207