MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024878054 · doi:10.7202/043325ar

Responsabilité extracontractuelle et harcèlement sexuel : le modèle d'évaluation peut-il être neutre ?

2005· article· fr· W2024878054 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Louise Langevin

Bibliographic record

VenueLes Cahiers de droit · 2005
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Systems and Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le modèle du « bon père de famille », ou de la personne raisonnable, utilisé dans l'évaluation de la faute extracontractuelle est loin d'être un modèle neutre et objectif. Il s'agit plutôt d'une norme essentiellement masculine et inéquitable pour les femmes. Pour démontrer son hypothèse, l'auteure trace un parallèle entre ce modèle d'évaluation et celui qui est employé dans les affaires de harcèlement sexuel du type « environnement de travail hostile ». Dans ces deux domaines, peu importe le modèle auquel ont recours les tribunaux, ils tombent dans le piège de la neutralité: le modèle neutre n'existe pas et l'évaluation du caractère raisonnable passe par la lorgnette du juge. Pour rendre des décisions qui tiennent compte des réalités des femmes, les juges doivent se débarrasser des modèles d'évaluation prétendument neutres, qui ne font que masquer la réalité, et prendre en considération l'opinion des victimes.

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)0.014
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 score0.876
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.092
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.320 · 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
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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