MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1991174939 · doi:10.7202/042831ar

lnstitutional Protection of Human Rights

2005· article· fr· W1991174939 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Leslie C. Green

Bibliographic record

VenueLes Cahiers de droit · 2005
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceEthnologyHuman rightsPhilosophyLawSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Si l'institutionalisation de la protection des droits humains est relativement récente, les auteurs classiques que l'on considère comme les « pères » du droit international reconnaissaient l'existence de ces droits. Leurs écrits sont significatifs sur ce point. Parlant de ces derniers, l'auteur retrace les grandes étapes de la protection institutionnelle des droits humains et fait le bilan des réalisations accomplies d'abord par la Société des nations et ensuite, sous l'égide des Nations unies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.020
Scholarly communication0.0100.004
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLes Cahiers de droit→Same topicInternational Law and Human Rights→French-language works237,207→