MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2289295209 · doi:10.7202/1034456ar

Le silence de l’Administration en droit administratif français

2015· article· fr· W2289295209 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Maryse Deguergue

Bibliographic record

VenueLes Cahiers de droit · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Systems and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSilenceHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le silence de l’Administration en droit administratif français a fait l’objet d’une récente réforme qui renverse le principe du silence valant rejet de la demande. Alors que le silence est habituellement étudié globalement, il semble qu’il peut être analysé du point de vue de sa signification et du point de vue de son sens. La signification du silence est une fiction d’une décision administrative qui a été prise malgré l’inertie de l’Administration. Le sens du silence s’apparente à une présomption de rejet ou d’acceptation de la demande, selon les époques. Mais le jeu du principe et des exceptions est obscurci par la succession des textes, à tel point qu’ils se distinguent difficilement. Sous ces deux acceptions du silence, la réforme, présentée comme simplificatrice et favorable aux administrés, est empreinte de complexité et de contradictions.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.766
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.334 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLes Cahiers de droitSame topicHealthcare Systems and PracticesFrench-language works237,207