Bibliographic record
Abstract
Au centre des débats universitaires et politiques, le concept de maturité de Zartman a fait l’objet de vives critiques. Cette contribution aborde ses lacunes et suggère un raffinement du modèle en vue d’une application plus nuancée afin de comprendre les déterminants du succès de la médiation et le rôle que peut jouer le médiateur pour l’obtenir. L’utilité de la théorie de Zartman est évaluée en comparant deux processus de négociation dans différentes phases du conflit entre le Kosovo et la Serbie, l’échec des pourparlers de Rambouillet (1999) et de la médiation d’Ahtisaari (2006-2007), et le succès de l’accord de Prespa, comparativement aux échecs précédents dans le cas du conflit opposant la Macédoine du Nord à la Grèce. Cet article conclut à l’utilité de la version revisitée du modèle de Zartman : le concept de maturité reste un moyen utile pour analyser le potentiel de paix et expliquer l’échec ou le succès de la médiation internationale.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.041 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".