Le recours au Comité des droits de l'homme de l'O.N.U. : une illusion?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The international charter of human freedoms became a legal reality via the coming into force of the following three documents : the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights and the optional protocol attached to it. The Human Rights Committee was created under the Convention on Civil and Political Rights. In accordance with the controlling machinery set up under the optional protocol, the Committee must examine complaints from individuals who feel that their rights as defined and protected by the Convention, have been violated. Besides Uruguay, Canada is the country that submits the greatest number of complaints to the Human Rights Committee. To this days, six « communications » putting it into question have been at the origin of the adoption of « final views » two of which have demonstrated a violation of rights laid down in the Convention. Yet various improvements have proved to be desirable so as to make resorting to the Committee more efficient. It is even conceivable that making the rule on exhausting internal recourses might allow the Committee to influence Canadian law by inciting Canada to amend its Constitution or to integrate the Convention into its national law so as to be usable before the courts. The Committee has thereby contributed to increasing the basic freedoms of Canadians via the Convention on Civil and Political Rights. Although their accomplishments have been praiseworthy, work done by the Human Rights Committee risks being incomplete if the status quo continues.
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 | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.003 |
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".