Les hiérarchies passagères, ou de la contingence dans l’équilibrage entre droits fondamentaux (Temporary Hierarchies: Of Contingency in the Balancing of Fundamental Rights)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: Cet article s’interesse au principe de non-hierarchisation des droits fondamentaux. Apres avoir succinctement rappele les termes principaux du debat sur cette question, tel qu’il se donne a voir en droit international et dans le droit constitutionnel canadien, nous y defendrons la these selon laquelle le principe de non-hierarchisation des droits fondamentaux est logiquement evident, en tant que verite apodictique (c.-a-d. « qui a une evidence de droit »3), tout en etant axiologiquement et historiquement difficile a concretiser, ce qui mene parfois a la creation de hierarchies plus ou moins passageres. Avant de livrer l’argumentaire au soutien de notre these sur les hierarchies passageres (partie 3), nous nous pencherons sur quelques justifications canoniques proposees au soutien du principe de non-hierarchie des droits en droit international (partie 1) et en droit canadien (partie 2). English Abstract: This article revisits the principle of the non-hierarchy of fundamental rights. After having examined how debates on this principle unfold in international law and in Canadian constitutional law, the author argues that this principle is logically obvious as an apodictic truth (i.e. which is a legal evidence), while being axiologically and historically difficult to materialize, which sometimes leads to the creation of more or less temporary hierarchies between fundamental rights.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".