Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé Partant du constat de l’absence de littérature sur les processus de codification du “droit interaméricain de la drogue,” la présente étude ambitionne de combler cette lacune en vérifiant par ailleurs l’existence même de ce droit, essentiellement au moyen d’une analyse comparative des prescriptions du droit onusien de la drogue avec celles du droit en vigueur dans les Amériques. Ce faisant, l’auteur en arrive à la conclusion que le droit interaméricain de la drogue est le produit d’un jeu d’influence réciproque entre le droit onusien, les lois-modèles de la Commission interaméricaine de contrôle de l’abus des drogues (CICAD) et les droits nationaux. Ce jeu d’influence, par effet de renvoi, particulièrement entre les lois-modèles de la CICAD et les droits nationaux, traduit bien l’influence des conditions structurelles, métajuridiques et extrajuridiques dans la codification et l’institutionnalisation du droit interaméricain de la drogue.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".