Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le jugement rendu par le Tribunal constitutionnel de la Colombie en 2006 offre un exemple saisissant de droit comparatif et de changement juridique. En reconnaissant le lien entre l’egalite et l’acces a l’avortement, le jugement marque un point tournant des droits des femmes en matiere de reproduction et peut servir de lecon aux tribunaux d’Amerique du Nord. La discussion qui suit decrit l’approche large de la discrimination adoptee par le tribunal par rapport a l’avortement, evalue les avantages d’un paradigme des droits positifs et examine la mise en oeuvre du jugement. En employant une approche de droit comparatif, l’article passe ensuite en revue les analyses juridiques qui ont marque le Canada et les Etats-Unis d’Amerique et evalue les differences pratiques qui resultent d’une demarche fondee sur l’egalite. Abstract: The recent 2006 decision by the Colombian Constitutional Court offers an important model for legal comparison and change. In recognizing the connection between equality and access to abortion, the decision represents a landmark for women’s reproductive rights and a lesson for North American courts. The following discussion will outline the court’s broad conceptualization of discrimination in relation to abortion, assess the advantages of a positive rights paradigm, and examine the implementation of the decision. Using a comparative lens, it will then review the legal approaches to abortion that have developed in Canada and the United States and evaluate the practical differences that result from an equality-based approach.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it