Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’article traite des apports possibles de l’anthropologie juridique à la théorie des droits de l’homme. L’auteur situe ces derniers face à la crise de la modernité : remise en cause du rôle de l’État comme producteur et garant des D.H.; contestation du caractère universel des D.H. au nom de la diversité culturelle. La démarche anthropologique, axée sur la recherche d’une théorie unitaire du droit, sur le comportement réel des acteurs et sur l’acceptation du pluralisme, semble propre à jeter un éclairage utile sur ces questions, en s’interrogeant sur les représentations qui sont à la base des diverses conceptions des D.H. Les nouvelles orientations du droit international et la reconnaissance croissante des droits des peuples autochtones appellent une redéfinition du contenu et de la portée des D.H. qui tiendrait compte à la fois d’un noyau intangible de droits, fondés sur des valeurs communes à tous les patrimoines culturels et systèmes sociaux, ainsi que de la dimension culturelle et collective des D.H.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".