Souvenirs – De l’Étude des cinq juristes au Renvoi à la Cour suprême (Quelques considérations sur l’indépendance du Québec vue par la lorgnette du droit international)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’étude rédigée en toute indépendance en 1992 par cinq spécialistes de droit international à la demande de la Commission d’étude des questions afférentes à l’accession du Québec à la souveraineté de l’Assemblée nationale québécoise (et sans doute à l’instigation de Daniel Turp) a marqué les esprits. Elle établit qu’à défaut de pouvoir se prévaloir d’un droit à l’indépendance, le peuple québécois pourrait y accéder s’il établissait un pouvoir étatique effectif et que les frontières de cet État étaient, sauf accord contraire, les limites actuelles du Québec et que ce même raisonnement s’applique aux Premières Nations. Malgré certaines apparences, ces conclusions ne diffèrent pas radicalement de celles de la Cour suprême dans sa décision sur le Renvoi de 1998.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".