Le droit à l’autonomie gouvernementale des peuples autochtones : un phénix qui renaîtra de ses cendres
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans cet article, l’auteur soutient qu’en dépit de l’échec de l’Accord de Charlottetown, le droit à l’autonomie gouvernementale des peuples autochtones continuera d’être discuté, négocié et mis en oeuvre tant au plan interne qu’en vertu du droit international. Dans une première partie, il décrit les principales dispositions de l’Accord de Charlottetown et explique, en se servant des leçons de l’anthropologie juridique, les raisons de l’échec de cet accord notamment auprès d’une portion importante des personnes membres des peuples autochtones. Dans une seconde partie, il décrit l’état actuel du droit international à l’égard des revendications des peuples autochtones et attire l’attention sur le fait que les normes du droit international s’inscrivent dans une logique et une symbolique qui, du point de vue culturel, ne peuvent prétendre être véritablement universelles.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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".