La crise financière et l’état du droit. Quelles évolutions au regard du dispositif des sommets du groupe des vingt pays industrialisés et émergents, le G20 ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les relations économiques internationales ont toujours été vues comme le domaine où le droit a développé des normes et des modes de régulation qui allient souplesse et autonomie de la volonté des opérateurs. Malgré ces atouts, on ne peut que relever la défaillance ou l’inefficacité du droit et de ses auteurs, notamment l’État, dans le secteur financier. Lors des différents sommets du G20, le débat a porté sur la revalorisation de l’État en tant qu’autorité de régulation et de contrôle des marchés. L’une des mesures phares est celle du renforcement de la régulation et de la supervision de l’architecture financière à l’échelle planétaire. Une telle régulation n’est donc pensable que si les acteurs se conforment à un principe de bon sens : « À acteur transnational ou international, droit international. »
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".