Bibliographic record
Abstract
Referring to doctrinal categories, the judicial control of public authorities' actions could be achieved not only through « private actions », directly aimed at protecting the plaintiffs own subjective rights, but also through so-called public interest actions. The latter represent attempts by « public-spirited » citizens or groups of persons to affirm the rule of law with respect to situations in which they cannot be deemed to be personally and directly aggrieved. The extent to which the courts are ready to consider such public interest actions depends on how they conceive the prerequisite of having a « sufficient interest » in order to bring an action at law. Is a « subjective » or, on the contrary, an « objective » attitude to be adopted in this regard ? The former attitude leads one to consider the impact of the act complained of upon the plaintiffs own interest ; the latter would reflect a primary concern for the social values sought to be affirmed by the intervention of the court. The present text purports to establish the relative acceptance of these trends in defining the locus standi by the Quebec judiciary. Account is taken of the influence of the Thorson-McNeil approach by the Supreme Court of Canada in matters involving a constitutional feature, and also, from a practical point of view, of the use that could be made of Book Nine of the Code of Civil Procedure on Class Actions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".