Vie privée et protection des renseignements personnels : revue de la jurisprudence 2017
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le present article analyse plusieurs decisions en matiere de vie privee et de protection des renseignements personnels, presentee par priorite et axes d’interet. Nous debuterons par les enjeux de vie privee et de messages textes (axe 1), puis par les questions de juridiction (axe 2) et de territorialite (axe 3), nous poursuivrons sur l’angle de la concurrence (axe 4) pour finir sur les aspects anti-pourriel (axe 5). Cette structure jalonne selon nous les moments importants de l’annee 2017 en matiere de vie privee et de protection des renseignements personnels – etant entendu que d’autres decisions et enquetes, notamment du Commissariat a la protection de la vie privee du Canada et de la Commission d’acces a l’information du Quebec, soulevent egalement des questions interessantes, mais ecrire, c’est choisir, et choisir, c’est renoncer. The present article analyzes of several decisions regarding privacy and protection of personal information, presented by priority and axes of interest. We will begin with issues regarding privacy and text messages (axis 1), then questions of jurisdiction (axis 2) and territoriality (axis 3), we will continue on the angle of competition (axis 4) to finish with anti-spam aspects (axis 5). In our opinion, this structure lays out the key moments of 2017 in terms of privacy and protection of personal information – it being understood that other decisions and investigations, in particular by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada and the Quebec Access to Information Commission, also raise interesting
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it