MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054332008 · doi:10.4000/ethiquepublique.419

Réflexions sur la nomination des juges

2011· article· fr· W2054332008 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
L.S. Masson, Sylvie Champagne

Bibliographic record

VenueÉthique Publique · 2011
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Law and Evidence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNominationHumanitiesPolitical scienceArtLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Au printemps 2010, le Barreau du Québec a décidé de participer à la réflexion menée par la Commission publique d’enquête sur le processus de nomination des juges du Québec. Il était nécessaire de revoir, après une trentaine d’années, le système québécois, qui a fait ses preuves et donné une magistrature de haute qualité. Pourquoi ? Afin de s’assurer, entre autres, d’augmenter la transparence du processus et de préserver la confiance des citoyens dans notre système de justice. Les auteurs présentent dans ce texte les propositions du Barreau du Québec pour améliorer le processus en ce qui a trait tant à la sélection qu’à la nomination des juges.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.861
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.242 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉthique PubliqueSame topicCriminal Law and EvidenceFrench-language works237,207