Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ce mémoire est un travail d'interprétation sur différentes interprétations du droit. Il confronte une approche juridique traditionnelle, une approche fondée sur le pluralisme juridique critique ainsi qu'une approche de géographie du droit à des réflexions suscitées par une série d'événements en relation avec la Semaine des Droits de l'Homme en Palestine qui s'est tenue à la faculté de Droit de Mcgill. Ces événements sont utilisés afin de mettre en lumière le fait qu'une approche théorique issue du Pluralisme Juridique Critique permet de rendre mieux compte des rapports de pouvoirs que les approches traditionnelles du droit ; celle-ci peut toutefois être enrichie par la Géographie du Droit afin de rendre compte du comment des rapports de pouvoirs, prevenir la réification des "human legal agency" et dépasser l'opposition binaire humain/non-humain.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.053 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".