Responsabilités communes mais différenciées et protection internationale de l’environnement : une assistance financière en quête de solidarité ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La question de l’assistance financière des pays développés aux pays en développement, en droit international de l’environnement, soulève plusieurs problématiques dont notre article tente de cerner les enjeux et les défis. Il s’agit d’abord de la question de savoir si cette assistance a un caractère obligatoire, fondé sur le principe des responsabilités communes mais différenciées et la solidarité internationale, ou si elle a un caractère instrumental visant à n’obtenir qu’une large adhésion aux accords internationaux. Il s’agit ensuite de la question de la cohérence entre le financement de l’environnement et le financement du développement dans le cadre de l’aide publique au développement. Enfin, il s’agit de la question de l’inefficacité relative des organismes de financement et du test décisif que constitue la négociation d’un futur accord sur le climat, en 2015, lequel dépendra de l’importance de l’assistance financière réellement consentie aux pays en développement, reflet de la solidarité internationale, assise idéologique des responsabilités communes mais différenciées.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".