LA DIVERSITÉ CULTURELLE EST-ELLE À L’ABRI DE LA PROTECTION INTERNATIONALE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La préoccupation concernant les questions relatives à la diversité culturelle remonte à la fin de la Deuxième Guerre mondiale et à la création de l’Organisation des Nations unies. Mais ce serait à travers l’adoption des deux textes internationaux, la Déclaration de l’UNESCO de 2001 et la Convention de l’UNESCO de 2005, que cette préoccupation prendrait de façon plus concrète. La Déclaration de 2001 et la Convention de 2005 ont à la fois évoqué la nécessité de protéger la diversité culturelle et mis l’accent sur l’importance de cette dernière au niveau international. Ainsi, le présent article a comme objectif de mettre en exergue la protection de la diversité culturelle au niveau international. Pour ce faire, nous examinerons la reconnaissance de la diversité culturelle par le droit international et la manière dont il peut mettre en oeuvre sa protection au niveau international.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".