Approches critiques de la sécurité
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Face aux discours post-11 septembre sur la nécessité de la "guerre au terrorisme", développer des approches critiques contre cette voie à sens unique où le champ de la sécurité se trouve réduit à sa dimension militaire classique, s'impose comme une urgence. Ce numéro propose d'ouvrir des perspectives telles que celles de l'environnement et du genre. Un numéro dirigé par une équipe canadienne et basé sur d'intenses échanges transatlantiques. Given the post-September 11th discourse on the necessity of the “war against terrorism’, it is urgent that critical approaches are developed to combat this one-way street, in which security is reduced to only its military dimensions. This new issue of the journal Cultures & Conflits proposes to open up other perspectives, such as those of the environment or of gender. In positioning the issue within the field of theories of international relations, the authors of this issue move the focus onto the research currently being carried out, with varying and/or new perspectives. They feed debates beyond existing and imposed boundaries. Produced by a team led by Professor Macleod from the University of Quebec at Montreal (UQAM), and the result of intense transatlantic exchanges, this issue also wishes to make a contribution to theoretical debates about the role, normative claims, place, and pertinence of classical internationalist approaches, through the use of constructive criticism and a neo-gramscian approach.
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 | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.065 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".