MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2683441262 · doi:10.34060/reesmat.v9i12.142

LA NOTION DE TORTURE, DE TRAITEMENTS INHUMAINS ET DEGRADANTS DANS LA JURISPRUDENCE DE LA COUR EUROPEENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME

2017· article· fr· W2683441262 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueREVISTA ESMAT · 2017
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTorture, Ethics, and Law
Canadian institutionsFrancophone University Association
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceTortureHumanitiesJurisprudenceArtLawHuman rights

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

En vertu de l'article 3 de la Convention européenne de sauvegarde des droits de l'homme, les Etats ne peuvent ni pratiquer la torture ni infliger des traitements inhumains ou dégradants. Le particularisme de cette convention par rapport aux autres textes internationaux ou régionaux relatifs aux droits de l’homme réside indéniablement dans le système de protection existant qu’elle a organisé. Un organe juridictionnel, la cour européenne des droits de l’homme, est en charge de sanctionner les Etats qui ne respectent la Convention. Au terme d’une jurisprudence novatrice et évolutive, la cour européenne des droits de l’homme impose de plus en plus efficacement de lutter contre la torture, les traitements inhumains et dégradants.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.833
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.334 · 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