De la légitimité républicaine retrouvée à un système honorifique recréé : les décorations de la seconde guerre mondiale de 1944 à 1954
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article retranscrit les débats d’une table ronde des 31èmes journées d’économie monétaire et bancaire à l’IEP de Lyon le 19 juin 2014. Les nouvelles réglementations du secteur bancaire ont-elles rendu les banques moins risquées de manière à ce qu’elles ne soient plus renflouées par les contribuables ? Ont-elles transformé les banques afin qu’elles servent mieux les besoins de l’économie et de la société ? La conclusion de la table ronde est que les réformes vont dans la bonne direction, mais leur cohérence internationale n’est pas assurée. Le risque des banques trop grandes pour être en faillite reste important. La concentration bancaire pourrait augmenter. Les banques mutualistes pourraient voir leur activité se réduire du fait de ces réformes.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.000 |
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".