MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2611576022 · doi:10.17118/11143/10459

Perspectives pour un principe de sécurité juridique en droit canadien : les pistes du droit européen

2010· article· fr· W2611576022 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Martin Nadeau

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue de droit Université de Sherbrooke · 2010
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Law and Evidence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L'auteur a réalisé un mémoire sur le concept de sécurité juridique (Martin Nadeau, Sur les traces d'un principe de sécurité juridique en droit canadien.Les pistes du droit européen, mémoire de maîtrise en droit, sous la direction de Mathieu Devinat, Université de Sherbrooke, 2009 [non publié]). Perspectives pour un principe de sécurité juridique 512en droit canadien : (2009-10) 40 R.D.U.S. les pistes du droit européen In European juridical discourse, legal certainty was initially conceptualized as a legal value or objective and, for the most part, was a subject of research in the field of legal theory and philosophy.European legal discourse gradually recognized the formal status of legal certainty, which subsequently became a principle or legal norm.The European Court for Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Communities, in particular, have recognized and now apply a general principle of legal certainty in their case law.Considering this, legal scholarship now states that the principle of legal certainty in domestic and supranational European law has emerged and has been officially enshrined.But some writers go further by arguing that legal certainty is a universal norm inherent in the rule of law and binding on judges and legislators.The multifaceted concept of legal certainty has now become a versatile, malleable standard that dictates the specific requirements of each judicial system whose autonomy is problematic.In Canada, the concept of legal certainty was recently introduced in jurisdictional and doctrinal discourse, without, however, receiving express status as a legal norm.The European example illustrates the concept's legal potential, in other words, its impact on judicial thought and on the implementation of laws.The Canadian discursive approach to the concept makes it likely, yet hypothetical, that legislators will eventually confer on legal certainty, which is currently a legal value and objective, the status of a principle.Perspectives pour un principe de sécurité juridique (2009-10) 40 R.D.U.S.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.795
Threshold uncertainty score0.408

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0110.019
Scholarly communication0.0170.009
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0070.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.210 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue de droit Université de SherbrookeSame topicCriminal Law and EvidenceFrench-language works237,207