Le pouvoir de délimiter le domaine de l’article 22 de la Loi sur la qualité de l’environnement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le traitement jurisprudentiel et doctrinal des questions qui se trouvent aux limites du champ d’application de l’article 22 de la Loi sur la qualité de l’environnement reflète une intégration imparfaite des principes du droit administratif. Afin d’y remédier, l’auteur propose de reconnaître que le ministre du Développement durable, de l’Environnement et des Parcs dispose du pouvoir de définir les termes et le domaine de l’article 22. L’analyse du cadre normatif qui guide l’exercice de ce pouvoir de même que certains aspects de son contrôle judiciaire sont illustrés par des références au développement des milieux humides et à l’exploration des hydrocarbures non conventionnels, deux sujets qui ont récemment retenu l’attention des tribunaux et de l’opinion publique. Les conclusions de cette étude dégagent des pistes de réflexion qui peuvent alimenter le processus annoncé de réforme du régime de l’article 22.
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 | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".