MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1860163611 · doi:10.7202/1032677ar

Le Tribunal des droits de la personne devant la Cour d’appel du Québec : appel à plus de déférence

2015· article· fr· W1860163611 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Sébastien Senécal, Christian Brunelle

Bibliographic record

VenueMcGill Law Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Law and Evidence
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTribunalHumanitiesPolitical scienceJurisprudencePhilosophyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

À titre de tribunal spécialisé, le Tribunal des droits de la personne du Québec est protégé par une clause privative qui le met, en principe, à l’abri de l’exercice du contrôle judiciaire par la Cour supérieure du Québec. Toutefois, les décisions finales du Tribunal peuvent être l’objet d’un appel, sur permission, devant la Cour d’appel du Québec. Dans l’exercice de cette compétence d’appel, la Cour tend à faire preuve de très peu de déférence envers le Tribunal, n’hésitant pas à remettre en cause non seulement ses conclusions de droit, mais aussi, assez fréquemment, son appréciation des faits. Les auteurs soutiennent que cet interventionnisme bat en brèche le principe de la spécialisation des fonctions, observé dans la jurisprudence de la Cour suprême du Canada, et compromet ainsi la capacité du Tribunal à appliquer et imposer un raisonnement propre aux droits et libertés de la personne, conformément au mandat qui lui échoit en vertu de la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne du Québec.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.387

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0180.009
Scholarly communication0.0070.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMcGill Law JournalSame topicCriminal Law and EvidenceFrench-language works237,207