Chine. Le déploiement des projets d’infrastructures de l’ « Initiative Belt and Road ». Une stratégie opportuniste ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Grand projet géoéconomique, voire géopolitique, la BRI n’est cependant pas un grand projet conçu par la seule Chine. Celle-ci s’est inspirée de projets antérieurs, puis a intégré de nombreux projets antérieurs de manière opportuniste et habile. Dans la coordination globale de ces projets, le gouvernement central et la NDRC disposent certes d’un poids considérable, mais cela ne veut pas dire que la mise en œuvre de tous les projets labellisés BRI réponde à une stratégie savamment conçue et planifiée. Relèvent-ils d’une véritable vision régionale ou restent-ils fragmentés ? Voici des réponses très documentées, avec une carte. Les co-auteurs de l’article viennent de publier une référence : Frédéric Lasserre, Éric Mottet, Barthélémy Courmont, (sous la direction de) « Les nouvelles routes de la soie. Géopolitique d’un grand projet chinois » collection Asies contemporaines, Presses de l’Université de Québec, 2019.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 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".