Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé Les systèmes de droit canadiens et américains reconnaissent la mémoire principalement comme un outil et un objet de preuve, alors que pour les anthropologues se souvenir est un acte moral et culturel. Cet article analyse la jurisprudence des causes historiques et contemporaines ainsi que des lois consacrées à la manière de traiter les cadavres dans la perspective d'une reconnaissance légale de la mémoire comme “pratique morale”. La jurisprudence contemporaine considère le traitement indigne de corps humains comme un affront à la mémoire du défunt. L'interprétation duNative American Graves and Repatriation Actdes États-Unis a permis de reconnaître des liens entre le monde des vivants et celui des morts. LaLoi sur les cimetièresde l'Ontario, par contre, qui règle les procédures administratives de tombes anonymes, n'a pas donné lieu à une interprétation inclusive des visions autochtones sur la connexion entre les vivants et les morts. Dans ces cas, la reconnaissance légale de la mémoire des morts ouvre une voie bien étroite à ceux qui réclament justice.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.056 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 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".