MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057004394 · doi:10.7202/043949ar

La Loi sur l’indemnisation des victimes d’actes criminels du Québec : lorsque le temps court contre les victimes de violence sexuelle intrafamiliale

2005· article· fr· W2057004394 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Louise Langevin

Bibliographic record

VenueLes Cahiers de droit · 2005
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Law and Evidence
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La Loi sur l’indemnisation des victimes d’actes criminels (LIVAC) du Québec indemnise actuellement en grande partie des femmes et des enfants victimes de violence sexuelle intrafamiliale. En 1972, lors de l’adoption de cette loi, le législateur québécois ne visait pas ce genre de clientèle et ce type de violence. À partir de la jurisprudence québécoise dans le domaine, l’étude qui suit a pour objet de mettre en lumière un problème d’application de cette loi, qui découle de la nature des infractions subies et des particularités de la clientèle. Après un court rappel du champ d’application de cette loi, l’auteure aborde la question du délai pour présenter une demande d’indemnisation. Il est reconnu que les victimes de violence sexuelle intrafamiliale ne sont pas toujours en mesure de respecter ce court délai, en raison de la nature même de la violence subie. Pour mieux répondre aux besoins des victimes, des propositions d’interprétation et de réforme législatives sont avancées. L’analyse de l’auteure est inspirée d’une approche d’équité qui favorise l’accessibilité à la justice pour les victimes de violence sexuelle intrafamiliale et qui assure la protection de leurs droits fondamentaux.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.839
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLes Cahiers de droitSame topicCriminal Law and EvidenceFrench-language works237,207