MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966565374 · doi:10.3917/rfap.139.0487

Les institutions de défense et de promotion des droits de la personne et du citoyen au Québec : un chaos apparent

2011· article· fr· W1966565374 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lucie Lamarche

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue française d administration publique · 2011
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

En matière d’institutions des droits de la personne, le Québec est un terreau fertile. Certaines institutions assurent indirectement la protection de tels droits. C’est le cas du Protecteur du citoyen qui concentre ses efforts sur les abus de l’administration publique. Par ailleurs, la Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse a pour mandat de faire des enquêtes de discrimination et de rechercher des remèdes appropriés. Nous concluons à l’inter-fertilisation institutionnelle, laquelle sert au mieux les détenteurs de droits. Dorénavant, le Québec devra de plus composer avec des instruments juridiques municipaux qui prévoient, eux aussi, des mécanismes de plaintes en cas de violations de droits de l’homme, et ce à l’échelle du territoire urbain. Chaos ou cohérence en vue ?

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.688
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.269 · 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.

Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue française d administration publiqueSame topicSocial Sciences and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207