Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: L’auteur analyse la critique recurrente des regimes de responsabilite stricte (regimes d’indemnisation sans egard a la faute), critique qui a trait a la dissolution du principe de la dissuasion, et son correlat, la baisse de la norme de conduite de la personne raisonnable. L'auteur analyse egalement le cadre theorique de la dissuasion en etudiant les principes de justice corrective et distributive, tel que theorise par Aristote. L'auteur soutient que la dissuasion decoule des principes de justice corrective. En outre, le droit de la responsabilite delictuelle constitue une manifestation de la justice corrective, par opposition a la justice distributive. Puisque les regimes d'indemnisation sans egard a la faute font partie du cadre theorique de la justice distributive, l'auteur fait valoir que la dissuasion ne devrait y etre associee. Par consequent, la critique selon laquelle les regimes de responsabilite stricte ne conduisent pas a la dissuasion est une aporie qui devrait etre denoncee. Les regimes de responsabilite stricte visent a mettre de cote la responsabilite individuelle afin de pouvoir se concentrer sur une responsabilite collective. Les regimes compensatoires acceptent la vulnerabilite humaine et le caractere inevitable des blessures. L'auteur fait enfin remarquer que les domaines vises par les regimes compensatoires, tels que celui de la profession medicale, ont leurs propres mecanismes de dissuasion qui reussissent a maintenir la norme de la personne raisonnable. English Abstract: The author analyzes the recurring critique of strict liability regimes (no -fault compensation regimes), that is the undermining of the principle of deterrence, which, in turn, lowers the reasonable person standard. The author examines the theoretical framework of deterrence by reviewing concepts of corrective and distributive justice, as theorized by Aristotle. The author contends that deterrence derives from the notion of corrective justice. Further, tort law embodies corrective justice as opposed to distributive justice. Since no-fault compensation regimes are part of a distributive justice framework, the author argues that they should not encompass the notion of deterrence. Consequently, the critique that no-fault regimes do not result in deterrence is an aporia that should be denounced. Strict liability regimes aim to set aside individual responsibility in order to focus on collective responsibility. Compensatory regimes accept human vulnerability and the inevitable character of injuries. The author notes that areas covered by compensatory regimes, such as the medical profession, have their own mechanisms of deterrence that succeed in maintaining the reasonable person standard.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".