L’aide humanitaire au défi de la communication politique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article part du constat que la définition de l’aide humanitaire ne fait pas consensus. Pour apprécier la diversité et l’ambivalence des réponses à des situations qualifiées de crises, il analyse donc le cas d’une ong, l’International Crisis Group (icg), qui s’est spécialisée dans la prévention des conflits armés au moyen d’une communication qui relève tout à la fois du plaidoyer humanitaire, du lobbying diplomatique, de l’alerte, de la sensibilisation politique et de la recherche-action. L’étude des pratiques discursives du Groupe permet notamment de décrypter les différents langages d’une aide internationale aux contours toujours flous, de la première urgence médicale jusqu’à l’intervention militaire. Elle permet aussi de clarifier la différence entre les efforts de médiation des ong et les campagnes de plaidoyer de réseaux enracinés dans des valeurs pacifistes, comme Pax Christi.
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 | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".