Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le francais fut un outil majeur de communication dans les relations diplomatiques. Aujourd’hui, cet usage est de moins en moins avere, notamment au sein des organisations intergouvernementales qu’elles soient universelles ou regionales. Neanmoins, la dimension linguistique ne doit pas occulter d’autres aspects qui revelent la presence de plusieurs francophonies a l’œuvre sur la scene diplomatique : des institutions francophones (l’Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie et ses operateurs), aux acteurs francophones emanant de la societe civile. Comment ces differentes francophonies percoivent leur role dans un systeme international contemporain caracterise par une serie de changements saillants sur le plan de sa structure (redistribution des capacites de puissance avec l’eclosion des « emergents ») ou bien de sa nature (homogeneisation partielle des valeurs et critique de l’occidentalisation du monde) ? C’est la l’objet de cet article qui aura deux principaux objectifs : identifier le repertoire d’action diplomatique privilegie par les acteurs institutionnels francophones et qualifier le role diplomatique exerce par les F(f)rancophonies allant de la logique du desenclavement a la posture du renforcement des capacites.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.074 | 0.006 |
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".