MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387366397 · doi:10.29053/2523-1367/2022/v6a16

Commentaire de l’arrêt de la Cour africaine des droits de l’homme et des peuples dans l’affaire Anudo Ochieng Anudo c. Tanzanie

2023· article· fr· W4387366397 on OpenAlexaff
Benjamin M. Kagina

Bibliographic record

VenueAfrican Human Rights Yearbook / Annuaire Africain des Droits de l’Homme · 2023
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHuman Rights and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La Cour africaine des droits de l’homme et des peuples (Cour africaine) a rendu, dans l’affaire Anudo Ochieng Anudo c. République-Unie de Tanzanie, son premier arrêt relatif au droit de ne pas être privé arbitrairement de sa nationalité en lien avec le droit de ne pas être arbitrairement expulsé. La Cour a été saisie par la requête de M. Anudo Ochieng Anudo d’origine tanzanienne. Dans son arrêt, la Cour s’est fondée sur l’article 15(2) de la Déclaration universelle des droits de l’homme pourcondamner l’Etat défendeur en prenant le contre-pied de la position constante de la Commission africaine des droits de l’homme et des peuples (Commission africaine) dans des affaires similaires. Le présent commentaire vise à faire ressortir la particularité de cet arrêt en rapport avec la jurisprudence de la Commission africaine et de la Cour européenne desdroits de l’homme. Il met également en relief la nécessité de finaliser l’adoption du Protocole à la Charte africaine des droits de l’homme et des peuples relatif aux aspects spécifiques du droit à la nationalité et l’éradication de l’apatridie en Afrique pour une protection efficace de ce droit en Afrique.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.258
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0090.010
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAfrican Human Rights Yearbook / Annuaire Africain des Droits de l’HommeSame topicHuman Rights and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207