Juger et motivr: Introduction comparative à la question du contrôle de proportionnalité en matière de droits fondamentaux
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans une serie d'interventions recentes, le premier president Bertrand Louvel a releve que la jurisprudence de la Cour europeenne des droits de l'homme bouleversait l'economie du pourvoi, dans la mesure ou cette juridiction exerce un controle de proportionnalite au cours duquel elle aborde les questions en droit, mais aussi en fait. Ce constat a en partie contribue a sa decision d'instituer une Commission de reflexion sur la reforme de la Cour de cassation dont il a confie la coordination des travaux au president Jean-Paul Jean. Dans le prolongement d'un article que l'auteur avait publie avec MM. Jestaz et Marguenaud (Revolution tranquille a la Cour de cassation, D. 2014. 2061), le president Jean l'a invite a prononcer, le 30 mars 2015, une conference aux fins d'evaluer, a partir d'une comparaison entre un arret de la Cour de cassation francaise et un jugement de la Cour supreme du Canada rendus a propos d'un cas identique et portant sur une question qui met en jeu des droits fondamentaux, les implications du controle de proportionnalite sur les modes de raisonnement des Hauts magistrats et la motivation de leurs decisions. Le presente texte reproduit cette conference.
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 | 0.019 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.046 | 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".