Vieux conflits, nouveaux arguments: Les droits linguistiques à la lumière de décisions récentes en Ontario et au Québec (Old Battles, New Arguments: Recent Language Rights Cases in Ontario and Quebec)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
English Abstract: The October 11th, 2001 meeting of the Constitutional and Civil Liberties sections of the Ontario and Quebec Bar Associates provided an opportunity to discuss language rights, an expanding area of the law in both Quebec and Ontario. Co-Chairs Yves Tourangeau and Marya Duckworth brought together lawyers who have greatly influenced the recent evolution of language rights in Canada, including Mr. Ronald Caza, lead counsel in the Hopital Montfort case, Mr. Brent Tyler, President of Alliance Quebec and lawyer defending Quebec’s minority language community, as well as Mr. Benoit Belleau, specialist in constitutional and civil rights. The audience members expressed their diverging opinions with conviction. All agreed that language rights are in full development in Canada. French Abstract: La rencontre du 11 octobre 2001 des sections de Droit constitutionnel et libertes civiles des Associations du barreau canadien, division du Quebec et de l’Ontario, a permis une discussion fructueuse et passionnee des droits linguistiques, domaine en pleine croissance au Quebec et en Ontario. Les copresidents Yves Tourangeau et Marya Duckworth ont rassemble des juristes ayant grandement oriente l’evolution recente des droits linguistiques au Canada, notamment Me Ronald Caza, avocat principal dans le dossier de l’Hopital Montfort, Me Brent Tyler, president d’Alliance Quebec et avocat des droits de la minorite linguistique quebecoise, ainsi que Me Benoit Belleau, specialiste en matiere constitutionnelle et libertes civiles. A l’instar des panelistes, les membres de l’auditoire ont exprime leurs opinions divergentes avec conviction. Tous se sont entendus que les droits linguistiques sont en plein developpement au Canada.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
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".