D’un régime de consultation à l’exercice du droit au consentement préalable
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La Colombie, qui a érigé le droit à la consultation en droit fondamental, est perçue comme un modèle en ce qui concerne la mise en oeuvre de la Convention 169 de l’OIT. La consultation y est fortement institutionnalisée, grâce notamment aux mobilisations autochtones et aux décisions de la Cour constitutionnelle colombienne. Si le « modèle colombien » de consultation crée un véritable espace de participation pour les peuples autochtones, il n’en demeure pas moins fortement contesté. Les consultations servent en effet surtout à légitimer les décisions gouvernementales, dans la plupart des cas, plutôt qu’à protéger les droits des peuples autochtones. Cette forte institutionnalisation a aussi comme effet paradoxal de restreindre et d’encadrer la portée du droit au consentement, de plus en plus mis de l’avant par les peuples autochtones face aux limites des procédures consultatives. En ce sens, la résistance au passage d’un modèle consultatif à un modèle reposant sur le droit au consentement reste importante en Colombie.
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 | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.002 |
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".