Annuaire français de relations internationales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le Rapport Johnston sur l’ingérence étrangère au Canada, remis au Premier ministre du Canada en mai 2023, répondait à des critiques d’inefficacité et de duplicité du gouvernement vis-à-vis des allégations d’activités étrangères, principalement chinoises. Or le Rapport dévoile autant qu’il obscurcit les activités sur lesquelles il devait jeter la lumière. Revenant sur le Rapport, cet article suggère qu’il a été incapable d’offrir un portrait d’ensemble des activités chinoises ou prochinoises se déroulant au Canada, coincé dans l’analyse des mécanismes et procédures institutionnels de l’appareil de sécurité canadien. L’article propose de regarder le phénomène de l’ingérence à travers le prisme de l’analyse acteur-réseau, afin de mettre en lumière les éléments culturels, institutionnels et technologiques qui s’associent, souvent involontairement, pour rendre l’ingérence possible. Dans le même temps, cette perspective éclaire les avenues d’intervention qui existent, en montrant les associations qui composent les réseaux d’ingérence.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.049 | 0.005 |
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".