Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le présent article a pour objet d’envisager l’interprétation de la Convention européenne à travers le prisme du dialogue des juges qui, en tant que phénomène spontané, est laissé à la libre appréciation de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme. Ainsi, si la jurisprudence de cette dernière est souvent citée comme une référence incontournable dans la pratique jurisprudentielle des autres organes internationaux de protection des droits de l’Homme, le degré d’ouverture de la Cour aux sources externes est variable. En effet, sa pratique du dialogue juridictionnel, à travers l’incorporation d’éléments extrasystémiques dans l’interprétation de la Convention européenne, demeure limitée et à géométrie variable, bien qu’elle tende à s’accentuer au fur et à mesure du développement de sa jurisprudence en conformité avec les autres instruments et décisions qui relèvent de l’ordre juridique international et de la protection des droits de la personne.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".