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
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
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".