La Sagesse Du Législateur Québécois Et La Médiation: Comment La Théorie Des Jeux Appuie Son Coup De Pouce (The Wisdom of the Quebec Lawmaker and Mediation: How Game Theory Provides a Nudge in the Right Direction)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: Dans le nouveau Code de procedure civile, le legislateur quebecois demontre une forte intention de privilegier les modes prives de prevention et de reglement des differends. Cette intention se manifeste non seulement lors de la disposition preliminaire, mais aussi par le fait que la consideration meme des modes prives est dorenavant une etape obligatoire prealable au proces. Compte tenu de sa nouveaute, les evaluations preliminaires du nouveau Code sont plutot fondees sur une preuve anecdotique plutot qu’une analyse systematique de l’emploi des modes prives. Une approche economathematique demontre la sagesse (plutot non intentionnelle) du legislateur en preconisant ces modes prives, surtout dans le cas de la mediation, puisqu’ils favorisent des reglements de differends plus optimaux que le proces pour les parties prenantes. Dans ce contexte, l’optimalite refere a une strategie maximisant l’utilite des parties. Cette approche permet de reveler les mecanismes rendant la mediation optimale dans une multitude de cas pour les parties aux prises avec un differend. English Abstract: In the new Code of Civil Procedure, Quebec’s lawmakers have shown a strong resolve in favour of private processes for preventing and resolving disputes. This resolve is manifested not only in the preliminary provision, but also by the fact that considering private means is now a mandatory step prior to litigation. As it is so recent, early assessments of the new Code are based on anecdotal evidence rather than a systematic analysis of private processes. Taking an approach rooted in mathematical economics demonstrates the lawmakers’ (somewhat unintentional) wisdom in advocating for these private processes — particularly in the case of mediation — as they favour more optimal dispute resolution for the parties involved than litigation. In this context, optimality refers to a strategy that maximizes utility for the parties. This approach reveals the mechanisms that make mediation optimal in many cases where parties are involved in a dispute.
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 | 0.005 | 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 | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 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".