Rendre effectifs les droits économiques et sociaux par le droit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis asks the following fundamental question: to what extent can economic and social rights be made effective through law? Because this question touches at once upon the effectiveness of these rights and on their status as norms of positive law, attempting to answer it requires first, an openness to other disciplines, and subsequently, to the question of the respect and control of these norms, namely that of sanction. From the outset, a preliminary and multidisciplinary analysis of the issue of contemporary poverty hints at an undeniable deviation with "pure legal theory". Moreover, economic and social rights are becoming more and more tangible in national legislation and more frequently invoked before the court (who is turn are showing a growing openness). 'Hard law' does have a place in this implementation, notably a symbolic one. Thus, the first part is dedicated to the determination of the role of 'hard law' as well as to the relevance of judicial activism. Given the limitations of 'hard law', the second part examines the issue of alternate courses of State action as opposed to any other demands for rights. Two forms of 'soft' and 'reflexive' law will then be examined in the interest of rendering economic and social rights effective: respectively from within the State, and from outside its framework. First, strategic planning (accompanied by outcome-based management) may serve to coordinate the State apparatus in the struggle against poverty. In what concerns the role of law at a societal level and in the context of a complex society, societal guidance will be preferred to impose strategic planning. In this way, it will be possible to shed light on other forms of sanction, which may be complimentary to legal ones. Finally, it is necessary to establish certain control and follow-up mechanisms of this category of rights, more relevant and innovative in order to garner a greater effectiveness of economic and social rights.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.077 | 0.015 |
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".