L'indemnisation des victimes en fonction des pertes non économiques résultant de blessures ou de décès : régime d'État ou de droit commun?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deux grands régimes juridiques disposent des pertes non pécuniaires : le régime de droit commun et la Loi sur l'assurance automobile. La présente étude vise à brosser un tableau des deux régimes pour en faire ressortir les différences fondamentales, les avantages ainsi que les inconvénients. Le droit commun emprunte la voie traditionnelle de la responsabilité civile : « toute personne est responsable du dommage causé par sa faute ». Le droit civil recherche une indemnisation intégrale de la victime, mais nécessite, la plupart du temps, l'intervention du système judiciaire. Établie selon une philosophie complètement différente, la Loi sur l'assurance automobile abandonne la notion de responsabilité, indemnise la victime sans égard à la faute et ne recherche pas la compensation intégrale. Les dommages non pécuniaires sont établis à partir de grilles d'évaluation strictes beaucoup moins souples que les méthodes de calcul du quantum issues du droit civil.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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.
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".