MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014578701 · doi:10.7202/043928ar

Le droit de congédier un employé physiquement ou psychologiquement inapte : revu et corrigé par le droit à l’égalité et le droit au travail

2005· article· fr· W2014578701 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Dominic Roux, Anne-Marie Laflamme

Bibliographic record

VenueLes Cahiers de droit · 2005
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Policies and Family
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Jusqu’à la fin des années 90, il était acquis qu’un employeur pouvait congédier un employé pour un motif d’absentéisme lié à l’inaptitude physique ou psychologique, dans la mesure où les deux conditions suivantes étaient réunies : d’une part, l’existence d’un taux d’absentéisme anormalement élevé et, d’autre part, l’impossibilité pour l’employé de fournir sa prestation normale de travail dans un avenir rapproché. L’évolution jurisprudentielle du droit à l’égalité et de son corollaire, l’obligation d’accommodement raisonnable, a radicalement changé les règles applicables en cette matière. Les auteurs analysent ici cet effet de « constitutionnalisation » sur le droit de l’employeur de congédier un employé incapable de fournir la prestation de travail pour laquelle il a été engagé.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.531
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.268 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations5
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLes Cahiers de droitSame topicSocial Policies and FamilyFrench-language works237,207