Bibliographic record
Abstract
Group action is inherent to a pluralistic society. In various fields, numerous bodies purport to defend and promote the common interest of their members which is also the raison d'être of the group. How receptive is the judicial system to attempts by such groups to legally defend the common aim ? « Collective actions » are brought to assure the legal protection of a collective value which is not of a general societal nature as is the public interest. However, their purpose is not to defend the subjective patrimonial interest of the members of the group or even of the group itself. The underlying collective interest is first to be objectively identified in order not to unduly curtail the reception of the collective action; then it is for the Court to establish whether there is a sufficient relationship between the collective interest and the general objects of the group, as officially defined, in order to allow the latter to act. This analysis of the « sufficient interest », as required by Sec. 55 C.C.P., it is suggested, appears to be more adapted to the nature of the collective action than the immediate requirement of a « direct and personal » interest from the group, at least if this notion is to be understood as involving some form of patrimonial interest, as in most trials.
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 | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.007 |
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".