Une contribution positive à la protection des droits individuels : l'institution de l'ombudsman au Canada
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada and Quebec have been actively involved in the trend which has resulted in the existence, within the political system, of a new institution : the Ombudsman. While the Government of Canada hesitated for some time before establishing the institution for federal purposes, the Quebec Public Protector has existed for somewhat more than 10 years, and the new institution has been recognized a proper remedy to the weaknesses of the judicial system. This article enumerates some of the weaknesses of judicial review and attempts to demonstrate that citizens are better protected by the Ombudsman because of the simplicity of the available remedies and the efficiency of settlement procedures. The new institution could not be introduced next to the judicial system without creating some problems. This article considers the respective domains which fall within the jurisdiction of the courts and of Ombudsmen, and the conflicts which could arise. Finally, the operation of the courts and of the Ombudsman will be considered, as well as the advantages and deficiencies of both institutions.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it