MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2339209625 · doi:10.7202/1035892ar

La rédaction bilingue des comptes rendus des comités de la Chambre des communes

2016· article· fr· W2339209625 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
André Braën

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue générale de droit · 2016
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Language and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceObligationPhilosophyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La constitution canadienne renferme certaines dispositions qui traitent de l’utilisation du français et de l’anglais dans les travaux du Parlement du Canada. La législation fédérale sur les langues officielles complète ce régime constitutionnel. L’auteur analyse à la lumière de la jurisprudence quelle peut être la portée véritable de l’obligation au bilinguisme parlementaire, particulièrement en ce qui concerne la rédaction des comptes rendus des comités établis sous l’autorité de la Chambre des communes et comment cette obligation coexiste avec les privilèges reconnus au Parlement et à ses membres.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.223
Threshold uncertainty score0.444

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0120.024
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 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
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue générale de droitSame topicLegal Language and InterpretationFrench-language works237,207