DÉMANTELER LES OBSTACLES INVALIDANTS : HANDICAP MENTAL ET RÉPARATIONS HABILITANTES À LA COUR INTERAMÉRICAINE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet essai analyse la jurisprudence récente de la Cour interaméricaine des droits de l’Homme relativement à la question de la réparation des violations des droits des personnes en situation de handicap mental. Il le fait sous l’angle du modèle social du handicap consacré dans la nouvelle Convention relative aux droits des personnes handicapées. D’après ce modèle, les réparations doivent démanteler les divers obstacles empêchant la participation pleine et effective des personnes en situation de handicap à la société. L’approche interaméricaine sur cette question paraît audacieuse tout en étant empreinte du modèle social du handicap, ce qui amène la Cour interaméricaine des droits de l’Homme à accorder des réparations amples et adaptées. Cela étant, l’approche interaméricaine présente des failles qui peuvent être comblées. Cet essai avance un cadre juridique amélioré à travers trois pistes de perfectionnement.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".