MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976694557 · doi:10.7202/042617ar

Le projet de loi n° 106 et les droits de la personnalité : perspective et analyse prospective

2005· article· en· W1976694557 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Édith Deleury

Bibliographic record

VenueLes Cahiers de droit · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth, Medicine and Society
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical sciencePerspective (graphical)ParliamentLawHumanitiesComputer sciencePhilosophyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bill 106 the purpose of which was to add the reformed Law of Persons to the Civil Code of Québec has been strongly criticized. Originally tabled in Parliament on November 17, 1982, a new draft has been prepared. The author thinks it fitting to give an overview of the main amendments proposed in this first draft and emphasizes the first title : « Les droits de la personnalité ».

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.620
Threshold uncertainty score0.764

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0090.021
Scholarly communication0.0170.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0070.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.361 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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 droitSame topicHealth, Medicine and SocietyFrench-language works237,207