Bibliographic record
Abstract
The principle of R2P – “Responsibility to Protect” – is intended to successfully counteract the international community’s powerlessness and failure to act in the face of crises and humanitarian catastrophes. It commits the international community to intervene in cases of genocide and crimes against humanity – in extreme cases even against the will of the state concerned. Originally established in peacekeeping, R2P, in certain ways a Canadian “invention”, also involves other areas of operation such as diplomacy, literature, and the media. The 19 articles assembled in this volume, which discuss the concept and the history of ist realization, contain both general reflections on a new understanding of state sovereignty and case studies dealing with particularly explosive political situations (Sudan, Afghanistan). Furthermore, beyond the responsibility of the political and diplomatic instances, the texts examine that of the media as sources of information, and the role of literature which – far beyond mere documentary writing – develops its own strategies and scenarios of how conflicts can be solved. - La “responsabilité de protéger” (R2P) est la tentative de combattre l’impuissance et la passivité de la communauté internationale en cas de crises et de catastrophes humanitaires, c’est-à-dire d’intervenir en cas de génocide et de crime contre l’humanité, et dans le pire des cas, d’intervenir même contre la volonté de l’État concerné. Se référant à l’origine au “Peacekeeping”, le projet R2P qui s’est développé avec l’importante participation du Canada, met également à contribution d’autres secteurs comme la diplomatie, les médias et la littérature. Les 19 contributions de ce volume qui éclairent le concept et l’histoire de sa réalisation comprennent aussi bien des prises de position pour une nouvelle conception de la souveraineté que des études de cas sur des situations politiques explosives (Soudan, Afghanistan). De plus, au-delà de la responsabilité manifeste des instances politiques et diplomatiques, les textes rassemblés abordent la responsabilité des médias en tant que sources d’information, et l’apport de la littérature qui, bien au-delà d’une écriture “documentaire”, propose des stratégies et des scénarios pour résoudre des conflits.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.943 | 0.944 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".