La notion de protection du public dans la réforme du droit professionnel québécois : une analyse socio-politique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper analyses the reform of the law governing professional occupations in Quebec from a socio-political standpoint. By focusing on the ideological level, the reform is seen as the result of the interaction of five competing ideologies : corporatism traditionnally dominant in the professional laws, technocratism that asserted itself in the context of the Revolution tranquille and gave its first impulse to the reform, neoclassic liberalism as expressed in the works of the Chicago School economists, communitarian ideology inspiring the practices of community-centered services among popular groups and consumerism advocating the interests of middle and upper class consumers. In conclusion, it appears that the Code des professions enacted in 1973 proceeded from a compromise between corporatism and technocratism which turned largely to the advantage of the former. But the next step could be quite different. As a matter of fact, the recent positions expressed by the Office des professions du Québec reveal a clear tendency to rely upon consumerism and more fundamentally upon liberalism to carry on the reform. If so, the private law perspective based on a new contract of professional service would become more determinative than articulated public policies in the future regulation of the professional services industry. Bu obtaining a significant reduction of traditional corporatist powers — particularly the price-fixing one — while preventing a more pronounced public intervention, liberal forces would be the ultimate beneficiaries of the reform.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
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.
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".