Le ministère des Armées et la mise en oeuvre de l’Agenda Femmes, Paix et Sécurité : un usage institutionnel minimal face à des engagements individuels marginaux
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article interroge la mise en oeuvre en France de l’Agenda Femmes, Paix et Sécurité par le ministère des Armées en examinant les différents types d’usages de cet instrument. Basé sur une enquête approfondie au sein du ministère des Armées, il montre tout d’abord que la poursuite des objectifs fixés par l’agenda prend la forme d’une opération de transcodage d’actions préalablement engagées, ce qui permet d’en contourner les aspects contraignants en faisant valoir l’argument de « l’efficacité opérationnelle ». Il interroge ensuite les formes d’appropriation institutionnelle et individuelle de l’agenda, et du concept de genre en particulier. Il met ainsi en lumière le contraste entre un investissement institutionnel minimal et des formes d’engagements individuels d’officiers convaincus de l’importance de l’Agenda FPS en tant que moteur de modernisation des appareils de défense.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".