Defining Roma Identity in the European Court of Human Rights
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
This article is an evaluation based on a selection of the European Court of Human Rights’ case law concerning Roma people, namely the three main decisions dealing with the right to a Gypsy way of life . In those cases, the Court interpreted the right to respect for private and family life as giving rise to a ‘positive obligation to facilitate the Gypsy way of life’. This obligation involves a definition of Roma identity and reveals that the Court’s position, founded on specific perceptions of Romanity is restrictive, distorted and stereotyped. Indeed, regarding this European legal protection, I wonder whether the legal conception of Roma identity conveyed by the Court is relevant, since it does not always accord with sociological or anthropological studies on that topic, taking into account a constructivist approach of identity, nor with the description of a wide range of members of that people. First, this article aims at underlying which stereotypes dealing with Roma identity are involved in the Court’s discourse. Second, it shows how these ‘manipulated conceptions’ are fed by the arguments of Roma applicants and those of the respondent State.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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