Les baux en résidences pour personnes âgées : quelle effectivité pour la protection des droits ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les droits des personnes âgées vivant en résidences privées sont-ils bien protégés ? Telle est la question à laquelle tentait de répondre une étude publiée en 2011. Or, depuis, plusieurs modifications législatives sont intervenues afin de tenter de protéger plus adéquatement cette clientèle vulnérable. La présente analyse vise à vérifier, à l’aide d’exemples concrets tirés des baux obtenus dans le cadre de l’étude de 2011, si les changements proposés pourront véritablement permettre de régler les problèmes de protection des droits des personnes âgées vivant en résidences privées. Devant le constat que les modifications législatives et réglementaires n’auront probablement qu’un effet fort limité, une solution plus adaptée sera proposée afin de veiller à assurer aux personnes âgées vivant en résidence privée une véritable protection sociale de leurs droits.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.002 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".