MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981572027 · doi:10.3917/ripc.251.0021

On the move in times of war and exile: Engagement, continuities, and caesura in the paths taken by Syrian activists in Lebanon

2019· article· fr· W2981572027 on OpenAlexaff
Marie-Noëlle Abiyaghi, Miriam Younes

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue internationale de politique comparée · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMiddle East Politics and Society
Canadian institutionsFédération des Maisons D'Hébergement pour Femmes
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArtEthnologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Depuis le déclenchement des soulèvements populaires en Syrie en 2011, des militants syriens ont tenté de descendre dans les rues et de dénoncer le régime baathiste. Sous l’effet de la répression, un nombre de manifestants pacifistes prennent les armes, ou rejoignent des groupes islamistes radicaux. Beaucoup d’entre eux quittent la Syrie pour s’installer dans des pays voisins, dont le Liban, et organisent des formes de résistance plus invisibles, apportant de l’aide aux personnes déplacées en Syrie ou aux réfugiés au Liban. Cet article se concentre sur la carrière des activistes syriens au Liban et retrace les notions d’engagement, de révolution et de mobilisation ainsi que les réseaux de solidarité et de résistance au sein de ces cercles militants. À travers les récits de vie et les carrières de militants basés au Liban, les recherches portent sur les expériences et pratiques vécues par les militants, leurs débats contradictoires, leurs réseaux de solidarité, leurs stratégies et leur invisibilité dans l’espace public, et les suivent jusqu’à la « fin » de leur engagement au Liban.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0170.018
Scholarly communication0.0100.004
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.258 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue internationale de politique comparéeSame topicMiddle East Politics and SocietyFrench-language works237,207