Réflexions portant sur le contrôle de la compétence professionnelle des membres du Barreau du Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Devant le faible nombre de décisions jurisprudentielles publiées qui proviennent du Comité de discipline du Barreau du Québec et qui portent sur la compétence professionnelle de ses membres, l'auteure examine le rôle du Barreau dans sa fonction autorégulatrice. Elle propose que, afin de conserver sa légitimité aux yeux du public, celui-ci envisage notamment d'autoriser officiellement la pratique des avocats au sein des cabinets multidisciplinaires et reconnaisse leur spécialisation de facto. Ces mesures s'avèrent nécessaires, puisque les nouvelles variables qui influent sur la pratique du droit découlent d'une conception néo-libérale de la relation entre le professionnel et son client. L'autorégulation doit donc asseoir sa légitimité sur des bases renouvelées, qui refléteront les attentes des clients.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.000 |
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.
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".