L’exercice de la profession d’avocat en société et en multidisciplinarité au Québec : bilan et perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La réglementation des modes d’exercice des professions juridiques au Québec a atteint un moment décisif au cours des années 2000 à la suite de l’adoption du Règlement sur l’exercice de la profession d’avocat en société et en multidisciplinarité. Une dizaine d’années plus tard, l’auteure se penche sur les tenants et aboutissants de cette réforme, en retraçant le processus de négociation qui a mené à son adoption ainsi que les différents arguments mis en avant par le Barreau du Québec et les autres ordres professionnels visés afin de faire valoir la nécessité d’une intervention législative en la matière. Des données tirées du registre des entreprises sont ensuite utilisées en vue d’examiner dans quelle mesure les cabinets d’avocats québécois ont profité des nouvelles options qui leur sont offertes relativement à leur forme juridique.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
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".