UNE COUR DE JUSTICE POUR LE MERCOSUR ? VRAIES-FAUSSES AVANCÉES VERS UNE INSTITUTIONNALISATION RENFORCÉE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Depuis la souscription du Traité d’Asunción en 1991, les États parties au MERCOSUR se sont engagés à construire un marché commun. Mais, contrairement au cas européen, ce modèle d’intégration n’a pas été doté d’un organe juridictionnel tel que la Cour de justice. Une proposition de protocole adoptée par le parlement du MERCOSUR en 2010 vient modifier la structure institutionnelle conçue en mettant en place une cour de justice qui remplacera l’actuel Tribunal permanent de révision. Celle-ci disposera de larges compétences pour assurer la légalité de l’ordre juridique du MERCOSUR ainsi que pour vérifier l’application uniforme de ce droit. L’inspiration des dispositions régissant le fonctionnement de la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne et du Tribunal de justice de la Communauté andine est évidente. Quelques distinctions méritent cependant d’être signalées. Bien que ce Projet suppose une évolution du système de règlement des différends actuel, plusieurs écueils s’opposent à son entrée en vigueur.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Other About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | low |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".