MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991906732 · doi:10.7202/043536ar

Une réflexion sur l'unification de certains recours extraordinaires

2005· article· fr· W1991906732 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Pierre Lemieux

Bibliographic record

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

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nombreux sont les recours relatifs au pouvoir de contrôle et de surveillance de la Cour supérieure. Au fil des ans, le contentieux relatif au pouvoir de surveillance s'est transformé à plusieurs reprises en un contentieux des règles procédurales. Si l’on prend tous les recours existants relatifs au contrôle de légalité, c'est-à-dire l'action directe en nullité en vertu de l'article 33 du Code de procédure civile, le mandamus, l'évocation, le quo warranto, l'habeas corpus et l'homologation, il y a certainement place à des regroupements. Il est important, pour tenter une certaine unification, de bien préciser les caractères de la question posée au juge. En d'autres termes, il est essentiel de circonscrire l'objet du litige. Ainsi, les recours pourraient être regroupés en deux blocs de classification : le contentieux visant la nullité de l'acte et un litige avec l'Administration, d'une part, et le contentieux de l'interprétation, d'autre part.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.105

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.033
Scholarly communication0.0130.025
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0070.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.291
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 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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