Angle droit sur la visiojustice! Petit décalogue à l’usage du praticien (Spotlight on Videoconferencing in the Courtroom: Practitioners’ Ten Commandments)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: Le recours judiciaire aux technologies audiovisuelles n’est plus une nouveaute au Canada. Dans toutes les provinces, a tous les niveaux juridictionnels, les comparutions a distance se generalisent, que ce soit par conference telephonique, visioconference ou a l’aide de technologies integrees combinant la voix, la video, la reconnaissance vocale et de texte. Cependant, les comparutions a distance restent une possibilite a l’entiere discretion du tribunal. Il lui revient, seul, de determiner si le moyen technologique est proportionne aux circonstances de l’affaire. Le tribunal a donc toujours le dernier mot. Le praticien quebecois se demandera alors : quels sont les elements a prendre en compte pour autoriser/refuser un interrogatoire dematerialise? Le present article repond a cette question en identifiant dix criteres – relativement constants – pour solliciter un interrogatoire a distance par voie technologique.English Abstract: The use of audiovisual technology in courtroom is no longer a novelty in Canada and in Quebec. In all provinces and across all court levels, remote appearances are becoming ubiquitous, taking form of phone conferences, video-conferences or through assistance of integrated technologies which combine voice, video, and voice and text recognition. However, use of these remote appearances remains at discretion of court. The judge alone may determine if the technological mean is proportionate to circumstances of case – section 26 of new Code of Civil Procedure. As such, court always has final word. The Quebec practitioner will therefore ask following question: which elements must be taken into consideration in order to authorize or refuse a remote appearance? This paper will respond to this question by identifying ten fairly constant criteria (delays and costs, reliability issues with technology, personal circumstances of witness, assessment of credibility, importance of testimony, witness’s personality and psychological fitness, importance of dispute and complexity of proceedings, language issues, etc.).
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 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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".