Les droits originellement africains dans les récents mouvements de codification : le cas des pays d’Afrique francophone subsaharienne
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’histoire de la codification en Afrique est indissociable de celle de la colonisation. Celle-ci — du moins politique — a pris fin, il y a une quarantaine d’années, le temps pour les États africains d’adopter leurs propres lois adaptées à leur situation. Sans conteste, le Code civil des Français a influencé et influence encore les droits africains. Devant le dualisme juridique produit par l’importation de ce code, se pose néanmoins la question du choix à opérer soit pour la connaissance effective, l’acceptation et le respect des droits africains, soit pour l’écart criant entre la loi et les pratiques sociales. L’auteur a choisi de scruter la part des droits originellement africains dans les récentes réformes et de vérifier si les Africains y lisent effectivement l’état de leur droit et l’âme de leur société. Sinon, pourquoi et comment y pourvoir ?
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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".