Tous pour un ou un contre tous ? L’arme de l’intérêt public entre les mains d’un usager
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le citoyen qui porte devant les tribunaux une question qui ne lui est pas personnelle mais qui touche plutôt l’ensemble de la collectivité s’appuie sur le concept de l’intérêt public. Il agit dans un contexte du Tous pour un en plaidant l’intérêt de tous pour gagner sa cause. C’est la position prise par les demandeurs dans l’affaire Chaoulli pour contester la validité de la prohibition de l’assurance santé privée duplicative au Québec. La Cour suprême du Canada a accueilli cette demande. Pour en arriver à ce résultat, le plus haut tribunal du pays a dû modifier son raisonnement suivi jusque là. En effet, la Cour rompt avec son interprétation de la Charte et permet qu’une disposition soit invalidée sans que la preuve ne démontre quelle est la cause effective du préjudice allégué. La Cour a ainsi transformé le Tous pour un en Un contre tous.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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".