COMMON LAW, « CIVIL LAW » ET DROIT PÉNAL INTERNATIONAL : TANGO (LE DERNIER ?) À LA HAYE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les systèmes de common law, puis de droit continental ou romano-germanique, offrent à la procédure criminelle deux approches très différentes. Ces systèmes se rencontrent dans le nouveau domaine, en constante évolution, du droit pénal international où les juristes des deux systèmes s’efforcent de créer un nouveau modèle. Dans ce contexte, on doit faire face aux contributions, et aux incompréhensions, qui proviennent d’un tel processus. Le développement d’un système international prend aussi place dans un contexte de respect international des garanties judiciaires prévues dans les instruments de protection des droits de la personne. Enfin, les exigences spécifiques de la justice internationale influence le modèle procédural. Ces trois thèmes sont abordés à la lumière de la pratique des deux tribunaux ad hoc, pour l’ex-Yougoslavie et le Rwanda, puis de la Cour pénale internationale et du Statut de Rome.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".