La politique étrangère : État des travaux scientifiques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Theoretical studies of foreign policy show that the very subject of the discipline is highly undefined. This is the reason why we shall try, first and foremost, to provide an answer to three fundamental questions. Is there a natural difference between foreign policy and decision-making, or is foreign policy only a sum total of decisions? Is there a difference between a foreign policy which dictates the major general trends and the various policies which apply to restricted scenes of action ? What is the difference between the objectives which actors assign to various policies and their implementation in the international System, thus making their evaluation a problem ? We then deal with the state of studies entered upon by three schools of thought and set down the results registered by the behaviorist trend, the theoretical dilemma it had to face and the dead end it led to. The second trend, historical and political, has, for its part, dealt with comparative analysis of historical cases according to the method of localized and structured comparison. Finally, the third trend, historical, economical and structuralist, has resorted to the world System paradigm of I. Wallerstein. The problem of this paradigm is the transposition of the debate between the supporters of the Annales school (structural serial history, economical and social contingencies) and the historians of international relations (who favour history of events and the role of the state). This approach also focuses on the debate about the dichotomy international relations/transnational relations. In the ends, rigorous and interdisciplinary research studies is deemed necessary for the promotion of studies in foreign policy.
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 | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.004 |
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".