Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le Code de procédure civile de la Province de Québec accorde un droit d’appel des jugements de la Cour supérieure et d’autres tribunaux en première instance. Cependant il tente en même temps de limiter et de contrôler l’exercice de ce droit. Le Code de procédure civile a retenu comme règle générale qu’il pourrait y avoir appel des jugements finals de la Cour supérieure et de certains autres tribunaux provinciaux à la Cour d’appel du Québec. Il a cependant tenté de restreindre ce droit d’appel à l’égard des jugements interlocutoires. Dans la première partie de cette étude, l’auteur discute la distinction entre les jugements finals et interlocutoires. La deuxième partie contient une description des différentes catégories de jugements interlocutoires en regard desquels le droit judiciaire québécois reconnaît un droit d’appel à la Cour d’appel du Québec. Enfin, dans la dernière section de cet article, l’auteur étudie les règles procédurales spéciales qui régiront l’appel des jugements interlocutoires en vertu du Code de procédure civile du Québec.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.005 |
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".