LE RÔLE DES PROVINCES LORS DE LA CONCLUSION DES TRAITÉS : LES LEÇONS À TIRER DES PRATIQUES COMMUNAUTAIRES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans cette étude, nous faisons d’abord l’analyse des procédures canadienne et communautaire de conclusion des accords internationaux. Ensuite, sur cette toile de fond, nous décrivons puis évaluons les mécanismes existants d’intervention des provinces canadiennes et des États membres de la Communauté européenne, afin de mesurer jusqu’à quel point le Canada et la Communauté s’efforcent et réussissent à y assurer le respect du principe fédéral. Finalement, le but ultime de notre étude est de réfléchir sur l’existence de remèdes qui seraient de nature à garantir aux provinces un rôle actif, prévisible et constant à l’occasion de la procédure canadienne de conclusion des traités. C’est précisément avec cette idée en tête, que nous avons étudié les solutions communautaires sur ce point, en pensant qu’elles pourraient possiblement constituer pour nous une source d’inspiration originale et intéressante.
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 | 0.014 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".