MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008454158 · doi:10.7202/042246ar

L'illégalité des activités pyramidales en fonction du Code criminel

2005· article· en· W2008454158 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Diane Bédard

Bibliographic record

VenueLes Cahiers de droit · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHistorical and Scientific Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLotteryLicenseCriminal codeCode (set theory)Order (exchange)IngenuityLawPolitical scienceLaw and economicsCriminal lawSociologyPhilosophyBusinessComputer scienceEconomicsEpistemologyProgramming languageMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The prohibition of pyramidal lotteries was introduced in the Criminal Code in 1935. Yet, such activities have increased since the beginning of the 1970's, especially in the province of Quebec. One should distinguish between pyramidal lotteries prohibited by the Criminal Code and pyramidal sales. Distinctions between these two concepts brought the courts to deal with nuances. Each case relates to its own facts. Considering the ingenuity of promoters of such schemes, the courts have had to unmask different forms of operations, in order to detail the constituent elements of the offence and to decide upon the validity of different defences. One might think that the question has been covered, but it will be necessary to wait and see what will be the effect of the new article 190 of the Criminal Code, which authorizes a provincial license to operate a pyramidal lottery.

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)0.003
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.379
Threshold uncertainty score0.754

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.009
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.228 · 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
GenreOther

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 routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLes Cahiers de droitSame topicHistorical and Scientific StudiesFrench-language works237,207