Diplomaties marginales : les peuples autochtones au sein des négociations climatiques internationales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les peuples autochtones constituent parmi les individus les plus marginalisés de la planète. Représentant plus de 370 millions d’individus répartis sur tous les continents, ils subissent de manière disproportionnée les effets des changements climatiques qui menacent leurs modes de vie traditionnels, leurs pratiques culturelles et leurs droits les plus fondamentaux. Pourtant, loin des images de simples victimes qui sont véhiculées dans l’imaginaire collectif, les peuples autochtones se sont considérablement investis dans la lutte contre les changements climatiques, notamment dans les travaux de la Convention-cadre des Nations unies sur les changements climatiques. Ces arènes de négociations internationales représentent des espaces dans lesquels les peuples autochtones tentent d’articuler des intérêts et des paradigmes alternatifs, à même de renouveler les objectifs et les stratégies du régime climatique. Cependant, l’examen des tensions survenues autour de l’inclusion des droits humains dans l’Accord de Paris en 2015 vient souligner les nombreux défis qui continuent à entraver l’expression des diplomaties autochtones.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".