L’adoption coutumière au regard du droit international : droits de l’enfant vs droits des peuples autochtones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’adoption coutumière des enfants autochtones soulève aujourd’hui le problème de sa reconnaissance juridique que revendiquent les peuples autochtones. Le droit international serait-il en faveur d’une telle reconnaissance ? Une analyse des droits des peuples autochtones et des droits de l’enfant garantis par les instruments internationaux démontre non seulement une absence d’attention sur ce sujet, mais aussi des éléments de réponse qui peuvent prêter à confusion. La position des instances internationales renforce l’idée d’un clivage qui perdure entre droits individuels et droits collectifs, et suggère que la réponse du droit international pourrait être celle d’une conditionnalité de la reconnaissance de l’adoption coutumière. L’auteure recommande plus de dialogue au sein des instances internationales entre défenseurs des droits de l’enfant et peuples autochtones.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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 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".