MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005836296 · doi:10.7202/043491ar

Le régime québécois d'assurance automobile, vingt ans après

2005· article· fr· W2005836296 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Thérèse Rousseau-Houle

Bibliographic record

VenueLes Cahiers de droit · 2005
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth, Medicine and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La Loi sur l'assurance automobile poursuit toujours, vingt ans plus tard, l'idéal promu lors de son adoption, soit « la personne avant toute chose ». Le système d'indemnisation des victimes en matière de dommages corporels fondé sur les principes d'assurance et de responsabilité collective sans égard à la faute et axé sur une forme de liquidation définitive des recours satisfait toujours la très grande majorité des Québécois. L'interprétation de la loi par les tribunaux a contribué à renforcer ses fondements tout en favorisant, par une interprétation large et libérale de la notion « d'accident causé par une automobile », l'indemnisation des victimes. La remise en question des principes de base du régime de la responsabilité sans égard à la faute de quiconque en matière de dommages corporels causés par des accidents d'automobile semble vouée à l'échec tant sur le plan judiciaire que sur le plan législatif. La punition des conducteurs coupables d'un acte criminel par des sanctions pénales paraît être la voie à privilégier. Quant à la réparation intégrale du préjudice corporel, elle demeurera toujours soumise aux choix politiques, sociaux et économiques de la collectivité qui paie le coût du régime.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score0.296

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLes Cahiers de droitSame topicHealth, Medicine and SocietyFrench-language works237,207