Jeux stratégiques et urgence sanitaire : la politisation laborieuse de la crise de coronavirus dans le monde
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La gestion mondiale de la pandémie de coronavirus (Covid-19) a donné lieu à un déplacement du débat du champ sanitaire au champ stratégique. L’on a assisté à des querelles diplomatiques dont le clientélisme médical et les thèses complotistes n’ont été que les expressions les plus spectaculaires. Ces oppositions ont relégué l’urgence sanitaire au second plan de la stratégie collective à l’international, et mis en avant les perceptions différenciées de la gouvernance sanitaire mondiale entre la Chine et de nombreux pays occidentaux. S’il reste prématuré de tirer toutes les conclusions de cette situation, il apparaît toutefois évident que la gestion du coronavirus a abouti à la subversion du discours scientifique et à une forme de déconstruction des rapports Nord-Sud.
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 | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".