MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W88914411 · doi:10.7202/1068173ar

LEARNING FROM THE YEAN AND BOSICO CASE: CAN THE REPARATION MEASURES ORDERED IN THE GUAYUBÍN CASE REALLY PRODUCE POSITIVE CHANGES?

2020· article· en· W88914411 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Marie-Pier Dupont, Philippe-André Rodriguez

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue québécoise de droit international · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Systems and Judicial Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Human rightsPolitical scienceThe RepublicPsychologyLawSociologyHistoryEpistemologyPhilosophyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article analyses the likelihood that the Guayubín Case delivered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights effectively contributes to the improvement of the situation of Haitian migrants in the Dominican Republic and their descendants. It does so by first describing the socio-historical context surrounding the issue. It then looks at the concrete impact of the first decision on the issue, the Yean and Bosico Case, on the situation it addressed. Finally, it attempts to predict which reparations measures of the Guayubín judgment are most likely to be complied with, and whether these measures might have a positive impact.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.662
Threshold uncertainty score0.650

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.250 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue québécoise de droit internationalSame topicLegal Systems and Judicial ProcessesFrench-language works237,207