MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2739022887

Tarifer au Québec le service public de l'administration de la justice civile

2006· article· fr· W2739022887 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Patrick Gosselin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Systems and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesEthnologyPhilosophySociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le but de ce memoire est de repondre a la question suivante : la tarification du service de l'administration de la justice civile dispense par l'Etat quebecois, est-elle compatible avec les caracteristiques economiques du service et est-elle souhaitable? Jamais au Quebec, personne ne s'etait penche sur la question. Pour ce faire, un travail considerable de recherches tant au niveau de la litterature quebecoise qu'au niveau des pratiques de certains Etats etrangers a ete necessaire. Dans un contexte ou les finances publiques quebecoises sont a bout de souffle, est-ce que la tarification des services de l'administration de la justice civile, par l'application du reglement nomme Tarif des frais judiciaires en matiere civile et des droits de greffe, peut etre une alternative souhaitable pour maintenir une qualite raisonnable de ces services publics? Ainsi, dans ce travail nous identifions les concepts generaux de base de la tarification. Nous dressons un historique de l'encadrement de la tarification au gouvernement du Quebec. Nous decrivons la tarification au ministere de la Justice du Quebec. Nous definissons, en fonction de la theorie economique, la nature du service qu'est l'administration de la justice civile. Nous comparons cette definition avec celles qu'ont retenues la Finlande, la Nouvelle-Zelande et le Royaume-Uni. L' ensemble de ces actions nous permet d'affirmer, entre autres : que l'encadrement de la tarification au Quebec n'offre pas de guide permettant de determiner si une tarification est souhaitable ou pas; qu'il n'existe pas au ministere de la Justice du Quebec de politique tarifaire; que le service de l'administration de la justice civile n'est pas un service public pur; et finalement, que dans certains Etats, la tarification de ce genre de services est mieux encadree et plus utilisee qu'au Quebec. En consequence, nous sommes d'avis que la tarification des services publics de l'administration de la justice civile est souhaitable, mais a certaines conditions, ces dernieres constituant nos recommandations.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.540

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0360.002

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.359 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHealthcare Systems and Practices→French-language works237,207→