MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2989692042 · doi:10.3917/cdlj.1002.0051

Les cours suprêmes nationales face aux défis de notre temps

2010· article· fr· W2989692042 on OpenAlexaff
Eyāl Benveniśtî, George W. Downs

Bibliographic record

VenueLes Cahiers de la Justice · 2010
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les cours suprêmes nationales sortent peu à peu de leur habituelle déférence à l'égard du pouvoir exécutif. On mesure à travers quatre exemples concrets - la lutte contre le terrorisme, la protection de l'environnement, les politiques de l'immigration et l'aide aux pays en développement - à quel point leur rôle est désormais « affirmatif. » Si elles savent s'autolimiter, elles peuvent aussi être audacieuses comme la cour suprême indienne en matière d'environnement ou la cour constitutionnelle allemande qui a su encadrer la lutte contre le terrorisme.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.014
Scholarly communication0.0100.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.299 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLes Cahiers de la JusticeSame topicInternational Law and Human RightsFrench-language works237,207