À la recherche d'une protection efficace contre les inspections abusives de l'État : la Charte québécoise, la Charte canadienne et le Bill of Rights américain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many laws in Canada and Québec grant rights of entry to inspectors responsible for looking after the proper operation of structures implemented by the State. From heavily regulated industrials to permit holders and simple citizens, everyone can expect someday to be paid a visit by an inspector. The question arises, however, as to whether the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Québec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms may be resorted to so as to exercise control over possible abuses resulting from such inspections. These Charters provide security for the person against the State in these areas whether through the right to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure, the right to a private life or to the inviolability of the home. However, the means by which such rights shall be adequately protected are somewhat uncertain. Should this be done by the granting of an administrative warrant issued ex parte as in the United States ? Or by granting the same kind of warrant in the presence of both parties ? The granting of administrative subpoenas also may be a solution to be considered. But for both legal and administrative reasons, it seems that the best control to exercise over these entries would come from drafting well-defined powers of inspection into the law granting them, which would provide an adequate protection of human rights and freedoms.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.002 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".