MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2899920778

Une conceptualisation novatrice de la diffamation en droit privé à la lueur de la charte des droits et libertés de la personne et du code civil du Québec

2016· article· fr· W2899920778 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Bar Review · 2016
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFreedom of Expression and Defamation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawHarmReputationPolitical scienceSupreme courtCivil codeHonourSociologyHumanitiesPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interference with the individual’s right to honour and reputation can give rise to two separate remedies, which overlap each other, or even coincide. On the one hand, the Charter of human rights and freedoms punishes defamation and entitles the victim to obtain cessation of the infringement and reparation of the resulting harm, based on section 49. Meanwhile, defamation incurs the civil liability of the offender under Article 1457 of the Civil Code of Quebec if the triumvirate of “fault, injury and a causal connection” can be proven. This fundamental critical reflection on the concept of defamation in private law is useful for proposing an innovative reading of its constituent factors and providing a coherent legal framework that supports and articulates it rationally. In the first part, the author proposes a continuum that runs from “harm to reputation,” to “unlawful harm to reputation,” to “wrongful harm to reputation.” Only the latter two involve the law and correspond to a civil defamation case – interference that is illegal, not merely blameworthy. In the second part, the author surveys the practical impact of (re)conceptualizing civil defamation using as an illustration the 2011 Supreme Court decision in Bou Malhab, which addresses the specific conditions for a civil defamation remedy and for collective injury, that is to say, the injury that the members of a group claim to have suffered as a result of racist comments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.913
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.279 · 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