MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7017380458

Analyse comparative de la Directive européenne 2003/86/CE relative au droit au regroupement familial et du Règlement canadien sur lâimmigration et la protection des réfugiés

2016· dissertation· fr· W7017380458 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueDIAL (Catholic University of Leuven) · 2016
Typedissertation
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean Law and Migration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDirectiveRail transportationIle de france
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ce mémoire est consacré à une analyse comparative entre deux systèmes de deux continents différents. D’une part, nous analysons le droit au regroupement familial sous le système européen et d’autre part, nous analysons le même droit sous le système canadien. Il faut préciser que ce droit est accordé à plusieurs sortes de catégories d'immigrés, mais en ce qui concerne ce mémoire, le droit au regroupement familial accordé au résident permanent est seulement abordé. Ceci afin que ce dernier puisse demander le regroupement avec sa famille dont les membres sont des ressortissants de pays tiers vivant hors du territoire en question pendant la demande. Dès lors, il s’agit de comparer la directive 2003/83/CE du 22 septembre 2003 relative au droit au regroupement familial, et le règlement sur l’immigration et la protection des réfugiés ayant reçu la dernière modification le 13 juin 2016.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.757
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.247 · 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