Dire pourquoi : plaidoyer en faveur de la motivation des nominations à la magistrature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans son rapport, la Commission d’enquête sur le processus de nomination des juges de la Cour du Québec, des cours municipales et des membres du Tribunal administratif du Québec innove en recommandant la motivation des nominations des juges, qui procèdent du pouvoir discrétionnaire du gouvernement. L’auteure soutient que l’exigence de motivation d’une nomination discrétionnaire, jumelée à l’absence de critères explicites de nomination dans un texte réglementaire ou législatif, traduit une vision de la discrétion gouvernementale orientée vers la transparence, la reddition de comptes et la participation du public. Il s’agit là d’un développement dont il faut se réjouir, puisqu’il s’inscrit dans le respect des valeurs démocratiques et du principe de la primauté du droit, et qu’il rompt avec la conception de la discrétion absolue, encore largement présente en arrière-plan du droit public.
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 | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| 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".