Le traitement des plaintes des justiciables : un ombudsman serait-il nécessaire ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les plaintes des justiciables ou usagers du service public de la justice risquent de devenir de plus en plus nombreuses, au fur et à mesure que les exigences de qualité attendues de ce service augmenteront. Si aucun modèle de traitement des plaintes ne s’impose véritablement, compte tenu des spécificités de la justice de chaque pays, une réflexion est indispensable pour tenter de donner une cohérence au système, en même temps qu’une légitimité réelle. Selon l’auteur, la transparence constituera l’un des maîtres mots de cette recherche, tant la fonction d’ombudsman en est dépendante. Elle propose alors quelques solutions pour y arriver, tout en soulignant que la multiplication des structures ne résoudra rien, et qu’il vaudrait mieux réformer les institutions existantes, en particulier le Conseil supérieur de la magistrature.
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 | 0.011 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".