La critique en droit international : Réflexions autour des livres de Koskenniemi, Anghie et Miéville
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet essai a comme premier objectif de faire une presentation critique des idees qui sont developpees dans les trois livres recenses. Il permet a l’auteur de proposer des reflexions sur certains sujets, notamment sur l’indetermination dans le droit, la «politique » des droits humains, ainsi que le potentiel emancipateur du droit international. La recension des trois ouvrages est egalement un pretexte pour faire une presentation plus large de ces nouvelles dans les approches critiques et les replacer dans le contexte des etudes critiques qu’a connu le droit international au cours du dernier siecle. Cet article cherche a demontrer que ces nouvelles approches se caracterisent du fait qu’elles font une critique a la fois epistemologique et normative des approches dominantes en droit international, ce qui n’etait pas le cas des approches critiques precedentes.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".