MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2515375725 · doi:10.3406/ridc.2016.20603

La résolution judiciaire du conflit (JDR) par les juges en Alberta : un modèle hybride

2016· article· fr· W2515375725 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hélène Piquet

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue internationale de droit comparé · 2016
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Law and Evidence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceSociologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La résolution judiciaire des conflits par le juge (JDR) en Alberta, au Canada, a été développée par les juges. La médiation judiciaire ne constitue qu’une des techniques employées dans le cadre du JDR. Le JDR déroge au modèle de la justice forum public identifié par Garapon et Papadopoulos pour les pays de common law. Le JDR souffre d’une malencontreuse association avec la médiation extra judiciaire alors qu’elle s’en démarque sur plusieurs points. Il s’agit d’un modèle hybride, combinant des éléments de justice privée et de justice publique. Ses traits distinctifs, soit le rôle central du juge dans le JDR et le caractère confidentiel du processus, suscitent des craintes eu égard à la nature du système canadien de justice civile. Elles se révèlent non fondées. Le JDR, à titre complémentaire du procès, répond aux besoins des parties et ne menace pas le modèle de justice forum public.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.889
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue internationale de droit comparéSame topicCriminal Law and EvidenceFrench-language works237,207