MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1973176377 · doi:10.7202/042369ar

La protection de la jeunesse en droit comparé

2005· article· en· W1973176377 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Édith Deleury, Jocelyn Lindsay, Michèle Rivet

Bibliographic record

VenueLes Cahiers de droit · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth, Medicine and Society
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationLegislatureContext (archaeology)Political scienceRemedial educationLawWork (physics)Child protectionSociologyGeographyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper is an account of the last phase in the work of the Research Project on Children and Young Persons' Law set up in 1974 within the Faculty of Law, Laval University. Its aim is to throw light through a comparative exercise, on the main features and deficiencies of the Youth Protection Act adopted by the Quebec Legislature on December 13, 1977 and progressively put in force over the period ending January 15, 1979. Having in mind the social, legal and cultural context of Quebec, the authors selected for comparative study the legislation on youth protection in England, Belgium, France and the States of New York and California. These had in any case been the legal systems whose influence was most strongly felt in the preparation of the Quebec Act. The paper first attempts to outline the philosophy underlying each of these systems. It then focuses on the provisions for remedial action both in respect of children living in unhealthy or dangerous conditions and of young offenders.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.504
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.333 · 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
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLes Cahiers de droit→Same topicHealth, Medicine and Society→French-language works237,207→