Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article propose un examen des débats et controverses qui sont survenus entre deux spécialistes français, Gilles Kepel et Olivier Roy, reconnus pour leurs travaux sur l’islamisme. Il s’agit d’examiner les deux thèses opposées à la lumière de l’importance qui est accordée ou non à la variable idéologique afin d’expliquer les actes terroristes qui ont frappé la France et fait des centaines de victimes dans les dernières années. L’article se penche sur trois dimensions en particulier. La première concerne l’importance de l’idéologie islamiste comme facteur explicatif des actes de terreur, alors que la seconde explore celle de la révolution des technologies de l’information en tant que véhicule dans l’émergence du radicalisme. Enfin, la dernière section revient sur le profil sociologique et psychologique de ceux qui ont commis des actes terroristes afin de voir s’il faut parler de « fous de Dieu » ou de criminels. L’article permet ainsi de saisir les oppositions théoriques et sociologiques qui existent entre les lectures de Kepel et de Roy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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.
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".