MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062611885 · doi:10.7202/042283ar

Les limitations à la liberté de manifestation et d'association

2005· article· en· W2062611885 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Gaston Nadeau

Bibliographic record

VenueLes Cahiers de droit · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicLegal Systems and Institutions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharterTrespassLegislatureJurisdictionPolitical scienceStatuteLawLegislationLaw and economicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms passed by the Legislature of Québec in 1975 suffers from major restrictions as to its scope. First, it is purely declaratory of existing freedoms, and does not purport to create new ones ; the Charter therefore only prevails on provincial statutes passed after it, and provided that such later acts do not specifically exclude the application of the Charter. Second, the Charter only applies to matters coming within provincial legislative power. Drawing the boundaries of any specific freedom therefore requires identification of the restrictions set upon it by both provincial legislation and federal jurisdiction. This paper attempts such a dedication of the fundamental rights of association and demonstration, set out in s. 3 of the Charter. Among matters coming within federal jurisdiction, the Criminal Code and the concept of national security are the main limitations on free association and demonstration. Provincial law on labour relations, trespass and private nuisance, the preservation of private property, and municipal regulation of nuisances, impose equally severe limitations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.477
Threshold uncertainty score0.949

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.038
Scholarly communication0.0210.008
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0070.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLes Cahiers de droitSame topicLegal Systems and InstitutionsFrench-language works237,207