L'INDEPENDANCE JUDICIAIRE : FONDEMENT DU PRINCIPE ET SON APPLICATION AUX TRIBUNAUX ADMINISTRATIFS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Often, in recent years, Canadian courts have reminded us that the principle of judicial independence is part of our public law. This principle is recognised both in terms of the Constitution Act of 1867 and of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Considering the expanded role of the court system since the Charter’s implementation – courts can now rule on the constitutionality of federal and provincial laws or government action – it had become vitally important that courts be totally independent from Parliament, from provincial legislatures and from government. But what about the independence of administrative tribunals? The independence of these tribunals seems fairly precarious. In Canada, this principle is generally applied to tribunals as a component of natural justice, a common law principle whose significance can be limited by legislative means. And even when the notion of judicial independence can be applied to tribunals, the guarantees are infinitely smaller that those applied to courts. As they must often judge cases where the state itself is a party, it becomes just as vitally important that the judicial independence of tribunals be strengthened.
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 | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".