Le droit international réglera-t-il les litiges du partage de l'eau ? Le bassin du Nil et quelques autres cas (Note)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En mai 1997, l'Assemblée générale de l'organisation des Nations Unies adoptait la Convention sur le Droit relatif aux utilisations des cours d'eau internationaux à des fins autres que la navigation. Ce texte est le résultat de plusieurs années, voire décennies de travail de la part des juristes internationaux. Tout en apportant des solutions à la gestion des fleuves internationaux, il soulève également un certain nombre d'interrogations quant à la mise en oeuvre de ses principes tels que la notion de bassin versant, « l'utilisation et la participation équitables et raisonnables », « l'obligation de ne pas causer de dommages significatifs », par exemple. À travers l'histoire récente du bassin du Nil, qui est souvent cité en exemple, cette étude a pour objectif d'analyser et de questionner la place et le rôle du Droit international public dans la gestion et la réglementation des conflits.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".