MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2913809600 · doi:10.3406/ridc.2018.20995

La réforme du Code de procédure civile du Québec : une nouvelle culture de l’exécution ?

2018· article· fr· W2913809600 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rudy Laher

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue internationale de droit comparé · 2018
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Law and Evidence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Avec le nouveau Code de procédure civile entré en vigueur le 1er janvier 2016, le législateur québécois entend favoriser l’éclosion d’une nouvelle culture judiciaire dans toute la communauté juridique et dans l’intérêt des justiciables. L’objectif est de mettre en place une procédure moins coûteuse et plus efficace, moins complexe et plus humaine. Concernant l’exécution des jugements, cela se traduit par la responsabilisation des parties, le renforcement du rôle de l’huissier de justice, la modernisation de certaines saisies ou encore la consécration de véritables principes directeurs de l’exécution. Surtout, sur un plan plus théorique, la nouvelle législation favorise, par les nombreux arbitrages qu’elle opère, le renforcement d’une culture de l’exécution hybride et de plus en plus détachée de ses deux modèles historiques traditionnels, français et anglais.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.733
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue internationale de droit comparéSame topicCriminal Law and EvidenceFrench-language works237,207