MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130602404 · doi:10.7202/042280ar

Les notions d'autorisation et de consentement dans le contrat médical

2005· article· en· W2130602404 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Bartha Maria Knoppers

Bibliographic record

VenueLes Cahiers de droit · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Malpractice and Liability Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislatorLawConfusionMeaning (existential)ParagraphLegislaturePolitical scienceCode (set theory)AuthorizationCivil codeLaw and economicsSociologyPhilosophyEpistemologyLegislationPsychologyComputer scienceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While the terms « authorization » and « consent » are commonly used in juridical language, their definition end precise meaning are not acknowledged by the Quebec legislator. In fact the two terms are often used interchangeably. Both the legislative history of the first paragraph of article 20 of the Civil Code, an article which provides protective measures for the discerning minor entering into a medical contract, and the reforms suggested by the Civil Code Revision Office, demonstrate this confusion as to the proper juridical terms and as to the role of the parental and judicial sanction. The author maintains that the term « consent » is not applicable to the juridical role of the parent of judge.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.825
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.362 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLes Cahiers de droitSame topicMedical Malpractice and Liability IssuesFrench-language works237,207