MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984726440 · doi:10.7202/043540ar

De certaines tendances en matière de petites créances

2005· article· fr· W1984726440 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marie José Longtin

Bibliographic record

VenueLes Cahiers de droit · 2005
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Law and Evidence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le ministre de la Justice annonçait en juin 1998 son intention de modifier le Code de procédure civile en matière de petites créances. Il amorçait ainsi un débat sur la question. Sans prendre position, l'auteure rappelle dans l'article qui suit les principes de 1971 et examine la manière dont ils ont été concrétisés. Son examen porte dans un premier temps sur la notion de petite créance, les parties et l'exclusion des personnes morales et des avocats, le mode procédural de la requête, la limitation des frais et le rôle particulier du greffier qui fournit une assistance aux parties. Dans un deuxième temps, l'auteure fait état de l'évolution des règles sur le recouvrement des petites créances. Qu'il s'agisse de l'augmentation de la valeur de la petite créance, de la mise sur pied puis de la suppression de la médiation, du rôle d'assistance du greffier, des changements de modèle quant à l'exécution ou des règles nouvelles sur l'exclusion des avocats et l'admissibilité de certaines personnes morales, on constate une atténuation des principes directeurs de 1971, même si leur persistance est néanmoins notée. Enfin, dans un troisième temps, l'auteure examine quelques tendances et soulève certains questionnements sur les possibilités de révision de la procédure en matière de petites créances.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLes Cahiers de droitSame topicCriminal Law and EvidenceFrench-language works237,207