Et si l’humanité dérivant du champ juridique de l’incrimination des « atteintes contre la paix et la sécurité de l’humanité » suffisait pour structurer la répression de l’écocide ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
S’inscrivant dans une approche pragmatique, cette réflexion entend s’appuyer sur le pouvoir interprétatif du juge pour résorber les limites qu’accuse la criminalisation du Statut de Rome au regard de graves atteintes écologiques perpétrées en temps de paix. En attendant l’avènement d’une incrimination autonome d’écocide, la Cour pénale internationale peut ainsi appréhender cette criminalité écologique partant de ces possibilités interprétatives. Cette perspective permet d’asseoir, à l’instar des crimes de guerre écologiques, l’essence criminogène de ces atteintes écologiques au titre des crimes contre l’humanité et de génocide. Il en résulte dès lors que le champ matériel de la CPI permet de saisir la portée criminogène des comportements gravement attentatoires à l’environnement perpétrés aussi bien en temps de paix qu’en temps de guerre.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".