MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2565696674

Les Droits De La Personne Et Le Litige En Protection De L’Enfance (Human Rights in Child and Youth Protection Litigation)

2016· article· fr· W2565696674 on OpenAlexaffabout
Robert Leckey, Nicholas Bala

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticultural Socio-Legal Studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesContext (archaeology)JurisprudenceEthnologySociologyLawPhilosophyGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

French Abstract: Ce chapitre offre un survol de l’impact des droits fondamentaux dans le domaine de la protection de l’enfance au Quebec. Comme nous l’expliquerons, c’est surtout a titre interpretatif que les droits fondamentaux y entrent en ligne de compte, notamment parce que les mesures principales qui garantiraient un proces equitable s’inscrivent deja dans les regles procedurales et dans la LPJ. Le chapitre se decline en quatre parties. D’abord, nous determinerons les sources juridiques que sont les instruments principaux qui enoncent des droits et la jurisprudence de principe (1). Ensuite, nous presenterons le droit aux procedures equitables, domaine par excellence ou les droits fondamentaux semblent aider les juges a apprecier la gravite des enjeux (2). Nous nous pencherons par la suite sur d’autres droits fondamentaux que les tribunaux reconnaissent parfois (3). Enfin, nous aborderons les questions des reparations et de l’application des Chartes aux individus des qu’ils sont impliques dans le systeme de la protection de la jeunesse (4).English Abstract: This chapter surveys the impact of fundamental rights in the context of child and youth protection in Quebec. As we explain, it's primarily as an interpretive aid that fundamental rights appear in this context, notably since the chief provisions that guarantee a fair hearing are already incorporated into rules of procedure and the Youth Protection Act. The chapter is in four parts. First, we identify the main legal instruments and the leading judgments. Next, we present the right to a fair hearing, an area where fundamental rights seem to help judges to appreciate the gravity of situations. Then, we address other fundamental rights that courts recognize occasionally. Finally, we raise the questions of remedies and of the application of the Charters to individuals once they are already involved in the system of youth protection.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.823
Threshold uncertainty score0.357

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.009
Scholarly communication0.0060.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.289
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic Journal→Same topicMulticultural Socio-Legal Studies→French-language works237,207→