Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The article examines the Canadian experience regarding access to justice, i.e., the activities of the commissions of inquiry and the initiation of the nationwide dialog on rethinking the concept of access to justice. It is indicated that access to justice is considered in Canada as one of the national priorities. Among the wide range of contributing factors, it is distinguished the activities of commissions of inquiry and the impact of their reports, a nationwide public debate, the legal problem surveys and researches, analysis of their data, the use of indicators to measure progress, etc. It is noted that the independent commissions of inquiry can be understood as an established and effective mechanism used not only to investigate disasters or accusations of public figures (fact-finding inquiries), but also to comprehensively and impartially inquire into issues of public concern, make recommendations for the development of public policy and advise the government (policy-based inquiries); therefore, the reports of such commissions have a de facto significant impact on society and contribute to reforms; the best examples regarding access to justice are the Macdonald Report and the Abella Report. The contribution of judges to the commissions of inquiry is emphasized, given judge’ professional skills of independent and impartial consideration, assessing evidence, running a procedurally fair process, following procedural requirements, etc. The influence of the reports of the commissions of inquiry on the public discussion of the issue of access to justice is characterized. It was analyzed that the public debate in Canada regarding access to justice was initiated at the end of 1990s. both at the provincial level and at the federal (nationwide) level, and was primarily concerned with rethinking the attitude to the concept of “access to justice”. It was emphasized that the Ukrainian translation of the term «access to justice» does not reflect all the nuances of the original. Since the concept of “access to justice” arose and developed in the English-speaking environment, where fairness (“equity”) and the system of laws in a country thatjudges and punishes people are denoted by the same word “justice”, therefore, “access to justice” refers primarily to fairness and not just to a court as a state institution. It is emphasized that although the concept of “people-centered justice” did not yet exist at that time, Canada put consideration of the individual and his or her legal problems at the heart of justice responses.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,007 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,006 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,011 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,009 | 0,004 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».