Interprétation excessive ou crainte fondée : pourquoi le gouvernement canadien rejette la Déclaration des Nations Unies sur les droits des peuples autochtones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’auteure entend évaluer la justesse de la position du gouvernement canadien à l’égard de la Déclaration des Nations Unies sur les droits des peuples autochtones, sur la base du droit canadien, des obligations internationales du Canada, des dispositions de la Déclaration et des prétentions officielles du gouvernement récalcitrant. À la lumière de cette analyse, il apparaît que la mise en œuvre de certaines dispositions de la Déclaration pourrait être un défi pour le Canada. Toutefois, ce défi n’est ni insurmontable ni périlleux, étant donné la capacité évolutive du droit canadien, la volonté de la population à cet égard et la présence d’une disposition d’équilibre complète au sein de la Déclaration.
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 | 0.026 | 0.089 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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.
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".