MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2538734072 · doi:10.7202/1100284ar

LE MILITANTISME JURIDIQUE ET LE NÉO-NATURALISME FACE AU DROIT INTERNATIONAL POSITIF : LES FLUX MASSIFS DE RÉFUGIÉS ET LA SÉCURITÉ NATIONALE

2023· article· fr· W2538734072 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michael Barutciski

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue québécoise de droit international · 2023
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Aviation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article souligne les divergences entre les interprétations des normes juridiques en droit des réfugiés proposées par les gouvernements et les militants. En s’appuyant sur l’exemple des obligations d’un État d’accueil confronté par un flux massif déstabilisant, il suggère que les instances judiciaires ont tendance à rejeter l’argumentation récente de certains militants concernant des principes fondamentaux de protection.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.174

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.034
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0040.006
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue québécoise de droit internationalSame topicInternational Law and AviationFrench-language works237,207