MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393509995 · doi:10.4000/revdh.19832

La mise en demeure de la banque ING par Milieudefensie, prémisse d’un nouveau contentieux climatique

2024· article· fr· W4393509995 on OpenAlexaff
Brice Laniyan

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue des droits de l’homme · 2024
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le vendredi 19 janvier 2024, l’ONG Milieudefensie a mis en demeure la banque ING de respecter son devoir de vigilance climatique. Cette action précontentieuse constitue la prémisse d’un possible nouveau contentieux climatique. Elle intervient dans un contexte marqué par une attention accrue sur le rôle et la responsabilité des acteurs financiers dans l’inertie du système énergétique mondial et l’aggravation de la crise climatique. La présente contribution vise à présenter le fondement juridique de l’action initiée par Milieudefensie et la rationalité qui régit la manière dont l’ONG choisit les entreprises ciblées en matière de contentieux climatique.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.814
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.279 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue des droits de l’hommeSame topicSocial Sciences and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207