Bibliographic record
Abstract
Engagée en 1992, la médiation de l’ osce en vue du règlement du conflit du Haut-Karabagh a été confrontée à une impasse. Cet article a pour objet d’explorer les causes de l’enlisement des négociations à travers deux variables : le contexte interne au conflit et son environnement international. Il s’agit d’examiner la façon dont ces deux dimensions se sont superposées, enchevêtrées et ont pénétré dans le processus de médiation pour en expliquer le résultat. L’échec des pourparlers apparaît, de fait, comme l’aboutissement logique d’un écart entre l’arène de la négociation diplomatique et le rapport de forces géopolitique sur le terrain. D’une part, le cadre formel de la médiation a ignoré la fragilité et la division des États parties au conflit, ainsi que l’autonomisation du Haut-Karabagh. D’autre part, il a occulté l’asymétrie des intérêts et des ressources des puissances médiatrices, voire leurs rivalités – dont les parties au conflit sont largement dépendantes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".