Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé La protection de la culture et les droits culturels revêtent une importance particulière pour les minorités et les peuples autochtones dans un contexte où la différence culturelle est pour plusieurs une source d’appréhension, engendrant souvent des discriminations multiples vis-à-vis de ces groupes minoritaires. Or, si on compare la promotion et la protection des droits culturels à celles d’autres droits humains, on constate d’emblée leur marginalisation. Cet article explore une des causes de cette marginalisation en abordant la question suivante : dans quelle mesure le concept de culture en droit international influence-t-il la promotion et la protection des droits culturels des groupes minoritaires? L’hypothèse avancée est que l’ambigüité et l’absence d’une définition contraignante de ce concept dans les instruments internationaux relatifs aux droits humains laissent la voie libre à une conception sous-jacente réductrice qui ne rend pas justice aux droits culturels des groupes minoritaires, qui conditionnent la mise en œuvre de ces droits en plus d’exacerber plusieurs exclusions. Une re-conceptualisation de la notion de culture qui tiendrait compte de réflexions émanant de l’anthropologie apparaît essentielle.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".