L’émergence et la reproduction des nations : un essai bibliographique critique sur la réflexion théorique et l’analyse historique dans l’étude du nationalisme : Coakley, John, 2012, Nationalism, Ethnicity and the State : Making and Breaking Nations, Londres, SageGat, Azar, 2013, Nations : The Long History and Deep Roots of Political Ethnicity and Nationhood, Cambridge, Cambridge University PressMalesevic, Sinisa, 2013, Nation-States and Nationalisms : Organization, Ideology and Solidarity, Cambridge, Polity Press
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article propose une étude bibliographique critique de trois récents ouvrages s’inscrivant dans les débats sur l’émergence et la reproduction du nationalisme. Il a comme objectif de replacer ces travaux à l’intérieur du paysage de la discipline des études sur le nationalisme, mettant de l’ordre dans les différentes questions soulevées et identifiant les principaux points de friction. Par le biais de cette démarche, deux arguments sont construits en ce qui a trait à la réflexion théorique et à l’analyse historique des nations et du nationalisme. Premièrement, une critique du débat « classique » autour de la question de l’émergence de la nation s’ouvre sur une présentation de l’approche constructiviste qui surpasse la dichotomie entre approches modernistes et pérennialistes et déplace l’interrogation centrale vers la reproduction des nations. Deuxièmement, une piste de réflexion concernant la production théorique au sein de l’étude du nationalisme est formulée sur la base d’une critique méthodologique des ouvrages recensés.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".