MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2884388620 · doi:10.7202/1049318ar

De facto, non de jure ou De facto, hoc de jure? Incursions dans la pratique de l’interaction entre le droit étatique et le droit coutumier rom en Roumanie

2018· article· fr· W2884388620 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sergiu Mișcoiu, Laura Maria Herța

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue générale de droit · 2018
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicRomani and Gypsy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesDe factoPolitical sciencePhilosophyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les Roms sont le seul peuple d’Europe ayant (encore) un droit coutumier vivant. Dans cet article, nous nous proposons d’explorer et d’analyser les hypostases de l’interaction entre le droit coutumier des Roms en Roumanie et le droit étatique roumain. Pour ce faire, dans un premier temps, nous allons brièvement exposer le cadre théorique qui guide notre démarche analytique — le pluralisme normatif. Puis, nous allons présenter les différences fondamentales entre les deux ordres juridiques en relation avec les modes d’organisation sociopolitique respectifs. Enfin, nous esquisserons et explorerons les trois hypostases de l’interaction entre le droit coutumier rom et le droit étatique roumain — la non-coplanarité officielle, l’intersection marginale et la subordination exceptionnelle.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.339
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.310 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue générale de droitSame topicRomani and Gypsy StudiesFrench-language works237,207