Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’examen du concept d’état de droit dans la pratique des acteurs internationaux révèle qu’il ne fonctionne pas comme une technique formelle, autonome et concrète. Les États utilisent l’expression pour exprimer toutes sortes de revendications tandis que les organisations internationales l’évoquent de manière très diverse et contradictoire. Quant à ses objectifs et finalités, l’analyse montre que l’état de droit ne peut, en l’état, atteindre des objectifs universels et désintéressés. Les États emploient le concept stratégiquement pour défendre et promouvoir des préférences et aspirations alors que les organisations internationales de leur côté l’utilisent pour imposer un modèle politique et de gouvernance. Dans ces conditions, loin d’être un impératif partagé, l’état de droit dans la politique internationale apparait en réalité comme un moyen de légitimation des objectifs politiques et fonctionnels.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".