MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999607412 · doi:10.7202/1027331ar

Parenté sociale et adoption homosexuelle : quel choix politique ?

2014· article· fr· W1999607412 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Jean-Louis Renchon

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue générale de droit · 2014
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Technologies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Heritage
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Saisi de différentes propositions de loi, les unes tendant à conférer un statut juridique au beau-parent hétérosexuel ou homosexuel, et les autres tendant à autoriser l’adoption par des personnes de même sexe, le Parlement belge devrait très prochainement débattre de la question de savoir s’il instituera la « parenté sociale » ou s’il envisagerait même de permettre l’adoption d’un enfant par deux « parents » de même sexe, c’est-à-dire de conférer à un enfant une double filiation de même sexe. Cette étude a pour objectif d’une part de circonscrire les différences qui existent, en termes juridiques, entre un statut de parenté sociale et une adoption homosexuelle et d’autre part de faire apparaître les enjeux socio-politiques du choix qui devra être effectué par le Parlement.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.376
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue générale de droitSame topicReproductive Health and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207