Bibliographic record
Abstract
La médiation des conflits politiques violents de la scène internationale a suscité, depuis 1989, un regain d’intérêt des acteurs de la politique mondiale (États, organisations internationales, ONG). Une prolifération des acteurs et des initiatives de médiation accompagnées par une recrudescence des programmes de recherches et des publications sur les médiations, les négociations et les processus de paix, produisent un savoir nouveau consacré aux stratégies négociées de sorties de conflit. Les échecs répétés de résolution des conflits israélo-palestinien, afghan, syrien, malien et autres semblent cependant avoir donné un coup d’arrêt à cette dynamique. Comment expliquer cette crise apparente de la médiation et des processus de paix ? Comment expliquer la répétition d’erreurs manifestes ? Quelles sont les leçons que les principaux acteurs de la médiation internationale tirent des expériences réussies mais aussi de leurs échecs ? Le présent texte introduit quatre études de cas de médiation qui tentent d’apporter des réponses à ces questions.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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".