MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018734200 · doi:10.7202/029646ar

Quel droit à l’égalité pour les non-citoyens ? Réflexion inspirée de l’affaire Charkaoui

2009· article· fr· W2018734200 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Julie Gaudreau

Bibliographic record

VenueLes Cahiers de droit · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Systems and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesJurisprudencePhilosophyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dans l’affaire Charkaoui , la Cour suprême du Canada a conclu que des aspects du régime des certificats de sécurité, prévu par la Loi sur l’immigration et la protection des réfugiés , étaient inconstitutionnels en vertu des articles 7, 9 et 10 c) de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés mais non discriminatoires à l’égard des non-citoyens au sens de l’article 15. L’auteure pose un regard critique sur la décision d’écarter l’application de cet article en l’espèce et suggère, après avoir examiné la jurisprudence de la Cour suprême en matière d’interdiction de la discrimination fondée sur la citoyenneté, une interprétation restrictive des privilèges du citoyen canadien mais large du droit à l’égalité lorsque les intérêts personnels essentiels des non-citoyens sont en jeu.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.662
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.333 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLes Cahiers de droitSame topicHealthcare Systems and PracticesFrench-language works237,207