MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2801610142 · doi:10.7202/1044730ar

REVUE DE JURISPRUDENCE 2012 EN DROIT DES OBLIGATIONS

2013· article· fr· W2801610142 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Daniel K. Gardner

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue du notariat · 2013
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal and Social Philosophy
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJurisprudencePolitical sciencePhilosophyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

En Cour d'appel, le juge Fournier est d'avis « qu'il commet une erreur » et s'en explique comme suit : 98 Chambre des notaires du Québec La Revue du notariat (2013) 115 R. du N. 93 4. Coppin c. Ouellette, 2012 QCCA 1739, par.43 (11 000 $). 5. Code de déontologie des notaires, c.N-3, r. 2, art.30 : « Le notaire doit éviter toute situation où il serait en conflit d'intérêts.» 6. Coppin c.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.174

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0130.019
Scholarly communication0.0160.010
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0240.028
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.004

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.238 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue du notariatSame topicLegal and Social PhilosophyFrench-language works237,207