Les Recours En Matière De Droits Linguistiques (Language Rights Remedies)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: La reconnaissance de droits et de devoirs lies aux droits linguistiques comporte forcement l’acces a une autorite ayant la competence d’en assurer le respect. Ainsi, en cas de violation de leurs droits linguistiques, les justiciables doivent avoir acces a une autorite judiciaire capable de constater cette violation et d’ordonner une reparation appropriee. La nature de la reparation dependra a la fois de la source normative du droit linguistique qui a ete violee et de la competence juridictionnelle de l’autorite saisie du contentieux ou de la plainte. Le present chapitre porte sur les recours judiciaires et administratifs qui permettent d’obliger l’Etat a respecter ses obligations au regard des langues officielles. Il compte trois parties. La premiere partie, soit la plus importante, traite des recours judiciaires. Elle aborde d’abord certaines questions afferentes aux parties aux litiges en matiere linguistique et au financement de leurs recours. L’auteur presente les fondements constitutionnels et legislatifs des recours judiciaires en matiere de langues officielles et les diverses formes de reparation en justice que permettent respectivement les regimes federaux, provinciaux et territoriaux. Par la suite, la deuxieme partie est vouee exclusivement aux recours administratifs aupres des divers commissariats, commissions et comites charges de mettre en œuvre les droits linguistiques federaux, provinciaux et territoriaux, notamment par l’entremise de la competence leur permettant de recevoir des plaintes, de formuler des recommandations et, dans certains cas, d’ester en justice. Cette partie traite egalement des recours possibles en vertu de mecanismes municipaux et institutionnels, dont l’acces aux services dans les deux langues officielles. Enfin, la troisieme partie examine la question des recours internationaux en droits linguistiques, qui demeurent limites et largement theoriques, mais dont l’importance croissante en font un sujet incontournable dans le present chapitre. English Abstract: The recognition of rights and duties related to language rights necessarily entails access to an authority competent to ensure the protection of these rights. Thus, in the event of a violation of a language right, access to a judicial authority capable of declaring a violation and of ordering an appropriate remedy is critical. The nature of the remedy will depend on both, the normative source of the language right that has been violated and on the jurisdiction of the authority hearing the dispute or complaint. This chapter, containing three sections, focuses on the judicial and administrative remedies compelling the State to fulfill its obligations regarding official languages. The first section, and arguably the most important, will deal with judicial remedies. In this section, the author addresses specific issues relating to the parties involved in language rights disputes and their related financing. The author also discusses the constitutional and legislative basis for judicial remedies regarding official languages and the various forms of legal redress afforded by federal, provincial and territorial systems. The second section is devoted exclusively to administrative appeals to the various commissioners, commissions and committees responsible for implementing federal, provincial and territorial language rights through their respective jurisdictions to receive complaints, make recommendations and, in some cases, to take legal action. This section also addresses possible remedies under municipal and institutional mechanisms, including access to services in both official languages. Finally, the third part examines the issues of international language rights remedies, which remain limited and largely theoretical, but whose increasing importance make them an unavoidable topic in this chapter.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.003 |
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".