La secession et les vertus de la clarte (Secession and the Virtues of Clarity)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: Le phenomene de la secession est considere avec une mefiance certaine par la communaute internationale, voire avec une veritable aversion lorsqu’elle est faite de facon unilaterale. Cette mefiance transparait dans le droit interne des Etats, dans le droit international et dans la pratique des Etats. Meme quand la secession ressort comme une solution logique et pratique – Kosovo, Sud-Soudan – elle n’est envisagee qu’avec beaucoup de precaution. L’avis rendu en 1998 par la Cour supreme du Canada relativement a la secession du Quebec pourrait aider la communaute internationale a etablir dans quelles circonstances et selon quelles modalites la delimitation de nouvelles frontieres internationales entre des populations pourrait devenir une solution juste et applicable. En ce sens, cet avis de la Cour supreme du Canada, en plus d’influencer pour le mieux le debat d’aujourd’hui sur l’unite canadienne, a une portee universelle qui pourrait aider a resoudre pacifiquement les situations complexes et delicates de rupture nationale, sur la base de la clarte, de la legalite et de la justice pour tous.English Abstract: The phenomenon of secession is considered with mistrust, even aversion when effected unilaterally. This mistrust can express itself at three levels: domestic law, international law and state practice. Even in circumstances when secession can be considered as a logical and practical solution – Kosovo, South Sudan – it is envisaged only with the utmost caution. The 1998 opinion rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada concerning the reference on the secession of Quebec could have a positive impact in this regard. It may help the international community clarify under what circumstances, and by what means, the delineation of new international borders between populations could be a just and applicable solution. In addition to influencing – for the best – today’s debate on Canadian unity, the Court’s opinion has a universal scope and significance that may help peacefully solve complex and delicate national breakup situations along the principles of clarity, the rule of law and justice for all.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".