Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le système judiciaire québécois connaît une forme de jugement empruntée à la common law et très différente de celle d’autres pays de droit civil, plus particulièrement de la France. Malgré ce fait, on peut se demander si le magistrat québécois qui doit décider d’une cause de droit civil peut, tout en respectant cette forme, adopter un style particulier. La réponse, avec cependant toutes les nuances qui s’imposent vu le rapprochement actuel des deux systèmes, apparaît positive. Au fond, c’est-à-dire sur les techniques de raisonnement, on remarque en effet des différences importantes tenant principalement à la notion même du droit qu’entretiennent les deux systèmes. En outre, les méthodes inductives et déductives utilisées dans le déroulement du processus décisionnel constituent un point de divergence important. Il en est de même quant au mode d’expression des normes juridiques, soit quant à la forme selon laquelle le juge exprime sa pensée.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".