Les institutions des droits de la personne au Québec: le chaos apparent - la cohérence effective (Human Rights Institutions in Quebec: Apparent Chaos – Effective Coherence) (in French)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Articles 1 and 2 of Paris Principles, adopted by UN in 1993, provide that national human rights institutions must have effective jurisdiction to protect and promote such rights. Such mandate must be understood as broadly as possible. Province of Quebec (Canada) has been as the forefront of developments in regard of such institutions. And there are reasons to believe that in regard of human rights institutions, more is better than less, although some institutions address the issue more indirectly than directly. This web of institutions all contribute to monitor human rights violations committed by State or non state actors. This paper intends to introduce the reader to the different institutional components of human rights institutions in Quebec. First, it considers the mandate and interventions of the Ombudsman (Protecteur du citoyen) which is to protect citizens against actions and omission of public administration; then, it looks at the Quebec Human Rights Commission who supervises the Quebec Human Rights Charter (a quasi constitutional document). In both cases, special attention will be given to the status of protected parties as citizens or as human rights holders. As well, the scope of both jurisdictions will be considered (reports; inquiries; analyse of draft legislations; etc ). Finally, we will touch upon recent municipal initiatives such as the Montreal Charter of Rights and Responsabilities of citizens. Municipal governments are getting more and more involved in regard of human rights in the city. In conclusion, we advocate in favour of multiple institutions in a given jurisdiction as we believe that all of them contribute one way or the other the protection, promotion and respect of all human rights.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".