MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078342908 · doi:10.3917/riges.371.0017

L'encadrement juridique des rappels et des retraits de produits de consommation

2012· article· fr· W2078342908 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Marie-Ève Arbour, Simon Johnson-Bégin

Bibliographic record

VenueGestion · 2012
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural safety and regulations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Résumé Phénomène en pleine expansion, les rappels de produits de consommation nécessitent de connaître l’encadrement juridique en la matière. Un tel exercice est d’autant plus pertinent que le Canada s’est tout récemment doté de la Loi canadienne sur la sécurité des produits de consommation, laquelle prévoit expressément la possibilité pour Santé Canada de procéder au rappel de certains produits s’ils s’avèrent dangereux pour la santé des personnes. Après avoir présenté cette nouvelle loi, l’article décrit trois études de cas afin de traiter des balises juridiques propres aux industries de l’automobile, des instruments médicaux et des aliments. Finalement, au-delà du respect des lois, nous parlons des responsabilités des employeurs et de l’État en matière de gestion des rappels et des retraits de produits.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.825
Threshold uncertainty score0.597

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGestionSame topicAgricultural safety and regulationsFrench-language works237,207