MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2278480828

Fictions et présomptions: outils juridiques d'intégration des technologies

2004· article· fr· W2278480828 on OpenAlexaff
Vincent Gautrais

Bibliographic record

VenueÉrudit documents and data repository (Érudit Consortium, University of Montreal) · 2004
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldComputer Science
TopicLaw, AI, and Intellectual Property
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophySociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Face à la nouveauté, les outils traditionnels du droit que sont la fiction et la présomption ont été légitimement utilisés par le législateur cherchant à encadrer au mieux les technologies de l'information. Néanmoins, ces outils ne sont pas neutres et il s'agira dans ces quelques lignes d'offrir un regard critique sur certaines tendances législatives lourdes de conséquences, notamment celles de neutralité technologique et d'équivalence fonctionnelle.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.069
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.143

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.069
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0140.042
Scholarly communication0.0300.026
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0080.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.002

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉrudit documents and data repository (Érudit Consortium, University of Montreal)Same topicLaw, AI, and Intellectual PropertyFrench-language works237,207