MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3197478733 · doi:10.4000/crdf.8153

Le mécanisme de suivi des décisions de la Cour africaine des droits de l’homme et des peuples : entre tâtonnement et nécessité de s’affirmer

2021· article· fr· W3197478733 on OpenAlexaff
Benjamin M. Kagina

Bibliographic record

VenueCahiers de la recherche sur les droits fondamentaux · 2021
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHuman Rights and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La littérature existante est unanime sur le fait que le mécanisme de suivi et de surveillance des décisions de la Cour africaine des droits de l’homme et des peuples garde plusieurs zones d’opacité et qu’une réforme s’impose. C’est pourquoi le présent article tente d’analyser la pertinence des réformes introduites dans le nouveau règlement de la Cour par rapport aux problèmes souvent soulevés dans la doctrine et par rapport aux autres systèmes régionaux des droits de l’homme.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.267
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.107
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.266 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCahiers de la recherche sur les droits fondamentauxSame topicHuman Rights and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207