LE CONTRÔLE DE L’EXÉCUTION DES ARRÊTS DE LA COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME SUITE AU PROCESSUS D’INTERLAKEN : L’ÉVOLUTION TECHNIQUE D’UN MÉCANISME POLITIQUE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La réforme qui a débuté lors de la Conférence d’Interlaken (les 18 et 19 février 2010), esquisse un nouveau mécanisme de contrôle de l’exécution des arrêts de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme, son objectif étant de faire face à l’augmentation de la charge de travail du Comité des ministres. Les principaux éléments du nouveau mécanisme sont l’identification de deux procédures de contrôle et, afin d’alléger la charge de travail du Comité des ministres, le renforcement du rôle du secrétariat chargé de la gestion quotidienne, à savoir le Service de l’exécution des arrêts. Les résultats enregistrés depuis montrent le succès de ces mesures, en augmentant le nombre d’arrêts dont l’exécution est soumise à supervision.
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 | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".