MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3010339489 · doi:10.4000/rdr.1067

Le droit à l’objection de conscience au service militaire pour motifs religieux

2016· article· fr· W3010339489 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Petr Muzny

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue du droit des religions · 2016
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConsciencePolitical scienceConscientious objectorMilitary servicePhilosophyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ignorée par la majorité des États durant près de quarante ans, l’objection de conscience au service militaire a depuis quelques années acquis un statut incontestable de droit fondamental reconnu tant par le Comité des droits de l’homme des Nations unies que par la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme. C’est l’occasion de faire un bref tour d’horizon du régime juridique de ce droit élaboré par ces deux juridictions en faveur de son effectivité. En nous servant des éléments constitutifs de l’objection de conscience au sens général, notamment élaborés par la doctrine canadienne sous la plume d’Henri Brun, nous verrons comment ces juridictions internationales sont parvenues à concilier la nécessité de protéger la conscience individuelle avec les impératifs de la sécurité publique.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.740
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue du droit des religionsSame topicAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207