MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076769744 · doi:10.7202/043444ar

Du droit comme facteur déterminant de la participation sociale des personnes ayant des incapacités

2005· article· fr· W2076769744 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Dominique Lizotte, Patrick Fougeyrollas

Bibliographic record

VenueLes Cahiers de droit · 2005
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Systems and Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le présent article a pour objectifs de proposer à la communauté juridique les résultats des travaux du Comité québécois sur la Classification internationale des déficiences, incapacités et handicaps (CQCIDIH) depuis 1991 et de les appliquer concrètement au droit québécois. Ces travaux amènent en effet un nouvel éclairage au droit des personnes ayant des incapacités, en particulier en matière de discrimination fondée sur le « handicap ». Dans la première partie, l'approche conceptuelle élaborée dans ces travaux récents ainsi que la terminologie qui l'accompagne sont présentées. Dans la seconde partie, la vision du droit qui se dégage des travaux du CQCIDIH est d'abord analysée. On procède ensuite à la première application au droit québécois de la proposition du CQCIDIH. On examine concrètement en quoi le droit est un facteur environnemental déterminant de la participation sociale des personnes ayant des incapacités, potentiellement un facilitateur de leur participation sociale ou un obstacle à celle-ci.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.479
Threshold uncertainty score0.952

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.334 · 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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLes Cahiers de droitSame topicHealthcare Systems and PracticesFrench-language works237,207