Bibliographic record
Abstract
Depuis nombre d'années, l'organisation non gouvernementale (ONG) humanitaire et ses volontaires se dévouent corps et âme en vue d'atténuer les effets néfastes des tragédies et catastrophes qui assaillent l'humanité. La présente étude s'inscrit dans une perspective de droit nouveau visant à leur accorder des statuts juridiques internationaux particuliers. L'exercice consiste d'abord à recenser les situations problématiques auxquelles se heurtent l'ONG humanitaire et ses volontaires sur le terrain. Celles-ci détermineront essentiellement l'étendue de la protection à leur offrir. S'ensuit une analyse du droit international, général et conventionnel, sous l'angle de la protection qu'il attribue à l'ONG humanitaire et à ses volontaires. Confronté au silence du droit international quant à la détermination de statuts juridiques internationaux particuliers conformes aux besoins ressentis par le milieu, nous proposons l'ébauche d'une convention sur les privilèges et immunités humanitaires.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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.
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".