Un nouveau “cheval de Troie”? Regard sur la codification des normes impératives du droit international général (<i>jus cogens</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé Depuis 2014, la Commission du droit international (CDI) étudie la question des normes impératives (jus cogens). Si ce projet a le mérite d’en éclaircir les aspects, cette contribution avance que certaines de ses observations peuvent aussi être assimilées à des “chevaux de Troie,” et pour deux raisons. Premièrement, certains principes entourant l’accès à l’impérativité pourraient favoriser la définition arbitraire de normes de jus cogens (rejet de la théorie de l’objecteur persistant en la matière, rôle des juridictions). Deuxièmement, certains effets attachés à l’impérativité pourraient être vecteurs de conséquences qui n’ont a priori pas été évaluées par la CDI (conformité des résolutions du Conseil de sécurité et des normes coutumières au jus cogens).
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 | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".