MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3041650460 · doi:10.18192/potentia.v8i0.4431

Qui gouverne le développement ?

2017· article· fr· W3041650460 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Lise Cazzoli

Bibliographic record

VenuePotentia Journal of International Affairs · 2017
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Development and Aid
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La révolution de l’information et des communications des années 1980 et les conséquences de politiques de décolonisation désastreuses ont joué le rôle de catalyseurs ayant permis l’émergence de nouveaux acteurs, de conflits d’une autre nature, et la profonde remise en question de l’ordre westphalien et de ses États-Nations, ainsi que des paradigmes gouvernant nos perceptions de la sécurité internationale. Au confluent de ces mutations se mêlent alors enjeux de sécurité, gouvernance démocratique et développement du Sud. Cette étude se donne pour objectif d’analyser comment ces dynamiques ont pu se matérialiser en une mutation du champ d’action politique, en examinant les acteurs et processus ayant gouverné l’implémentation des Objectifs du Millénaire pour le Développement (OMD), souvent présentés comme les composantes du premier agenda international pour le développement jamais réalisé. Nous verrons que l’action publique organisée en réseaux crée de nouveaux défis sécuritaires liés à l’exclusion de l’espace démocratique.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.010
Scholarly communication0.0120.010
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.003

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 head0.308
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePotentia Journal of International AffairsSame topicInternational Development and AidFrench-language works237,207