MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068882225 · doi:10.7202/043492ar

L'indemnisation des victimes d'accident du travail : une histoire de contre-courants

2005· article· fr· W2068882225 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Marie‐Claude Prémont, Maurice Tancelin

Bibliographic record

VenueLes Cahiers de droit · 2005
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth, Medicine and Society
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La thèse soutenue est celle d'une régression législative de la protection sociale des victimes d'accident du travail et de maladie professionnelle. La loi de 1985 édicte des présomptions légales qui ramènent le travailleur sur le terrain du contentieux. La logique de l'indemnisation automatique se trouve ainsi écartée, alors qu'elle constituait le point fort du compromis historique élaboré au Québec à partir de 1909, dans la foulée des pays industrialisés d'Europe occidentale. La Cour d'appel révèle en 1992 dans six arrêts rendus le même jour l'ampleur des limitations apportées par la loi de 1985 à la protection juridique des travailleurs. Le silence gardé par la doctrine sur ces arrêts de principe contraste avec la vigueur des critiques qui ont accueilli en 1996 une décision de la Cour suprême refusant, à juste titre, d'utiliser les chartes à l’encontre d'une protection sociale acquise au cours de l'histoire. Ces textes constitutionnels devraient être utilisés à meilleur escient, comme l'établissement de ponts entre le droit civil de la responsabilité individuelle et le droit social de l'indemnisation collective.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.146
Threshold uncertainty score0.290

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.027
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.299
Teacher spread0.284 · 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
GenreOther

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 topicHealth, Medicine and SocietyFrench-language works237,207