La judiciarisation et le non-recours ou l’usurpation du droit du logement – le cas du contentieux locatif des HLM au Nunavik
Bibliographic record
Abstract
À partir de l’exemple du contentieux locatif des habitations à loyer modique (HLM) du Nunavik, les auteurs défendent l’hypothèse que le parallélisme entre la judiciarisation des locataires, d’une part, et le non-recours aux droits de ces mêmes locataires, d’autre part, révèle une instrumentalisation du contentieux par les pouvoirs publics et un détournement des fonctions de la Régie du logement. Concrètement, la Régie rend annuellement, à la demande de l’administration québécoise, des centaines de jugements ordonnant, dans une région polaire, l’expulsion de milliers de locataires. Ces derniers, qui sont logés depuis des dizaines d’années par l’État québécois dans des logements insalubres et surpeuplés, n’ont en revanche jamais recours au système judiciaire pour faire valoir leurs droits. Le droit du logement est ainsi systématiquement et méthodiquement détourné par les pouvoirs publics. En lieu et place de protéger les droits des locataires et de réguler l’activité de l’administration, le système judiciaire agit alors principalement comme auxiliaire des pouvoirs publics.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes | Other design | low |
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".