MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2338267445 · doi:10.7202/1035783ar

Souvenir de la common law et actualité du droit administratif dans les provinces anglophones du Cameroun

2016· article· fr· W2338267445 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Célestin Sietchoua Djuitchoko

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue générale de droit · 2016
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicComparative and International Law Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pays bilingue ayant le français et l’anglais comme langues officielles, la République du Cameroun est aussi un État culturement bi-juridique où se juxtaposent deux grands systèmes de droit : la common law pour ses provinces anglophones anciennement sous occupation de la Grande-Bretagne et le droit civil, mais surtout le droit public pour la partie francophone, jadis sous influence de la France. Ce bi-juridisme, comme les disparités naturelles, humaines, économiques et politiques de ces deux composantes de la communauté nationale est fondamentalement inégalitaire. Sous l’impulsion des autorités francophones de l’État post-colonial politiquement dominantes, les droits français ont amorcé, voici environ 35 ans, un mouvement d’extension, par touches progressives d’abord, puis brutalement ensuite; sortis de leurs aires naturelles, ils sont allés à l’assaut de l’ordre juridique des provinces anglophones. Ce mouvement est particulièrement net pour le droit administratif, le droit actuellement applicable à la puissance publique dans ces contrées où les souvenirs imposent à la conscience qu’il n’y a pas longtemps, c’était la common law, dans la plus pure tradition anglaise qui exerçait cet office.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.528
Threshold uncertainty score0.950

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue générale de droitSame topicComparative and International Law StudiesFrench-language works237,207