MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2942529458 · doi:10.7202/1058220ar

L’action en dommages et la violation des droits linguistiques

2019· article· fr· W2942529458 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
André Braën

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue générale de droit · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInterpreting and Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La constitution canadienne renferme plusieurs dispositions qui octroient des droits linguistiques aux deux minorités de langue officielle. L’intervention de l’État est généralement requise pour leur mise en oeuvre. Dans le cas où l’État n’y donne pas suite, quel rôle peut jouer l’action en dommages ? L’auteur analyse, sur une base comparée droit civil / common law, les diverses situations où une contestation judiciaire reposant sur une action en dommages pourrait connaître des chances de succès.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.120

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0130.040
Scholarly communication0.0110.006
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0060.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.003

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.364 · 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
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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue générale de droitSame topicInterpreting and Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207