MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2947589675 · doi:10.7202/1059339ar

LA PRÉCARITÉ DES DROITS LINGUISTIQUES SCOLAIRES OU LES SINGULIÈRES DIFFICULTÉS DE MISE EN OEUVRE DE L’ARTICLE 23 DE LA CHARTE CANADIENNE DES DROITS ET LIBERTÉS

2019· article· fr· W2947589675 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Daniel Proulx

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue générale de droit · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Language and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La constitutionnalisation des droits à l’instruction dans la langue de la minorité pose des difficultés de mise en oeuvre très particulières. D’abord, il s’agit de droits de nature sociale, c’est-à-dire de droits qui requièrent préalablement, pour leur existence même, le concours actif des pouvoirs politiques provinciaux par voie législative ou exécutive. Dès lors, est-il possible de recourir aux tribunaux pour leur demander de forcer littéralement un parlement ou un gouvernement inactif à intervenir ? Ce texte propose quelques ébauches de réponse à cette question épineuse. Du même coup, il fait ressortir 1° de quelle façon les rapports normaux entre gouvernants et gouvernés s’en trouvent transformés en matière de libertés publiques et 2° à quel point l’équilibre des pouvoirs publics canadiens est bouleversé par une incontestable remise en cause du rôle traditionnel de nos tribunaux.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.597
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designQualitative
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue générale de droitSame topicLegal Language and InterpretationFrench-language works237,207