Le plaidoyer des personnes en situation de handicap pour l'ODD 16+
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L'Agenda 2030 a suscité l'enthousiasme mais aussi d'intenses débats. Les optimistes perçoivent les Objectifs de développement durable (ODD) comme les leviers d’un effort mondial visant à ne laisser personne de côté. Les pessimistes craignent que les ODD alignent les politiques de développement sur un projet néolibéral. Cet article explore les débats entre ces visions, en examinant la logique qui sous-tend le plaidoyer des organisations de personnes en situation de handicap (OPH), en faveur des ODD. Il triangule l'analyse de leur activisme au niveau mondial, au Canada et en Haïti. S'appuyant sur un cadre théorique institutionnaliste critique et intersectionnel, il conclut que si le positionnement stratégique des OPH transnationales pour les ODD est compréhensible et contribue modestement à leurs luttes dans des contextes favorables comme le Canada, il est peu probable que qu’il en soit de même dans des contextes contraignants comme celui d’Haïti.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 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".