MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2948541102

LA COUR SUPREME FACE A LA VIE, FACE A LA MORT: DE VALEURS ET DE DROITS

2000· article· fr· W2948541102 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Suzanne Philips-Nootens

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Bar Review · 2000
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticultural Socio-Legal Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupreme courtAutonomyDignityContext (archaeology)LawFace (sociological concept)Political sciencePromotion (chess)Foundation (evidence)SociologyHistorySocial sciencePolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As a result of the adoption of the Quebec and Canadian charters, the Supreme Court has been attributed the task of delineating our fundamental values . With regard to life,the fundamental issue relates to the unborn. Whether in the context of a planned termination of pregnancy or gestation leading to birth, legal recognition is attained and the rights of the child supercede those of its parents. According to the writer, the weaknesses inherent in the legal reasoning of the Court when confronted by this paradox result from its promotion of certain societal choices. As with life,so is it with death. Destined to protect the integrity of the person, an adult's autonomy undergoes limitations at the threshold of the unacceptable, that is to say regarding one's right to choose death. Lastly, as the foundation of all rights, the notion of human dignity is consecrated by the Court in a most praiseworthy decision.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.153
Threshold uncertainty score0.307

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.014
Scholarly communication0.0100.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Bar ReviewSame topicMulticultural Socio-Legal StudiesFrench-language works237,207