Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the two electoral campaigns held in France in the spring of 1981, parties and their candidates gave only limited importance to foreign policy. They showed some interest during the presidential campaign but very little during the legislative elections. This relative silence can be explained by the fact that the French are in rather wide-spread agreement as to the over-all orientation of foreign policy as defined in the 1960s by General de Gaulle and as adapted subsequently by his successors. Clearly, economic and social questions dominated the electoral discussions. Valery Giscard d'Estaing defended his seven-year record; his opponents in the outgoing majority and on the left sharply contested it. Without abandoning a critical position, François Mitterand tried to reassure the French by showing them that his coming to power would not upset the foundations of foreign policy and that changes would be more important in other areas. A thematic study of arguments used during the electoral campaign shows that Valery Giscard d'Estaing's opponents forcefully reproached his overall conception of foreign policy defined by "globalism" and his attitute toward the USSR following the invasion of Afghanistan. The meeting between the French president and Leonid Brejnev in Warsaw was at the heart of the polemic. Even if weak arguments were used in other areas of foreign policy, international problems did in the end play a significant role in challenging the credibility of the outgoing president. Foreign policy became a tool used for electoral purposes. The electoral campaign was characterized as well by the involvement of pressure groups, notably Jewish organizations discontent with French policy toward the Middle East and by the active support of the Socialist International in favor of François Mitterand. On the whole, the electoral campaign emphasized continuity more than change. It is useful to be aware of these positions in order to understand France s foreign activities under its socialist regime.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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".