Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le texte cherche à expliciter comment s’articule juridiquement le concept de liberté d’expression au Canada. On en voit d’abord la signification traditionnelle et la protection que lui accordent la constitution formelle du pays et le droit statutaire. On s’interroge ensuite sur les principales limites juridiques que les parlements imposent à cette valeur, que ce soit dans le cadre du droit criminel (sédition, obscénité, propagande haineuse, droit à un procès équitable) ou du droit civil (droit à la vie privée, diffamation). On se demande enfin si les parlements sont libres de multiplier à leur guise les limites juridiques à la liberté d’expression ou si, au contraire, ils ont une obligation de prendre des moyens pour la protéger, en légiférant par exemple sur la confidentialité des sources journalistiques, l’accès à l’information gouvernementale et l’accès aux médias.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".