Le Programme de pratique du droit à mi-parcours : une étude empirique (The Law Practice Program at the Halfway Mark: An Empirical Study)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: En septembre 2014, le Programme de pratique du droit (« PPD ») ouvrait ses portes a sa toute premiere cohorte. Ce programme, une creation du Barreau du Haut-Canada (« Barreau »), offre une voie alternative a l’admission a la profession juridique. Le PPD a ete cree pour une periode de trois ans avec une possibilite de prolongation pour une periode de deux annees additionnelles. L’un des objectifs principaux de la presente recherche est de mesurer l’impact du PPD offert en francais a l’Universite d’Ottawa sur l’acces a la justice en francais en Ontario. Dans cet article, nous presentons les resultats de trois questionnaires que nous avons administres aux candidats inscrits au PPD offert en francais. Deux de ces questionnaires ont permis de recueillir des donnees a l’egard des candidats au tout debut de leur programme en 2014 ainsi qu’en 2015. Le troisieme questionnaire a permis de faire la collecte de donnees additionnelles a l’egard des candidats de la premiere cohorte du programme (cohorte de 2014) suite a leur participation au programme et a leur admission au Barreau. Cet article presente d’abord un survol du PPD et explique brievement l’historique des circonstances et des debats ayant menes a la decision de creer le PPD. Dans un deuxieme temps, le PPD est situe dans le contexte de l’acces a la justice en francais en Ontario. Puis, apres une description de la methodologie de l’etude, les donnees recueillies sont presentees et analysees.English Abstract: In September 2014, the Law Practice Program (“LPP”) opened its doors to its first cohort. This program, created by the Law Society of Upper Canada (“LSUC”), offers an alternative pathway for admission to the legal profession. The LPP was created for a period of three years with a possible extension for an additional two years. One of the main objectives of the current study is to measure the impact of the LPP offered in French at the University of Ottawa on access to justice in French in Ontario. In this article, we present results from three surveys we administered to candidates registered in the LPP offered in French. Two of these surveys allowed the collection of data regarding candidates at the very beginning of their program in 2014 and 2015. The third survey allowed the collection of additional data regarding the program’s first cohort (the 2014 cohort) following their participation in the program and their call to the bar. This article first presents an overview of the LPP and briefly reviews the circumstances and debates that led to the decision to create the LPP. Secondly, the LPP is discussed in the context of access to justice in French in Ontario. Finally, after presenting the study’s methodology, the collected data is presented and analysed.
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 | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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; 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".