MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3006502745 · doi:10.4000/crdf.3820

La consécration en clair-obscur de l’obligation de motivation des actes administratifs au Chili

2019· article· fr· W3006502745 on OpenAlexaff
Carolina Cerda-Guzman

Bibliographic record

VenueCahiers de la recherche sur les droits fondamentaux · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal processes and jurisprudence
Canadian institutionsSt. Clair College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyObligationPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article propose de revenir sur l’obligation de motivation des actes administratifs au Chili, telle qu’elle découle de la loi du 29 mai 2003. Si la consécration de cette obligation dans ce pays a été relativement tardive, cette loi est souvent louée par sa portée, puisqu’elle semble généraliser cette obligation à tous les actes administratifs chiliens. L’étude vise alors à revenir sur les origines de cette loi, au prisme du cadre constitutionnel chilien, et ensuite à analyser les incertitudes qui demeurent encore aujourd’hui quant à la portée de cette obligation de motivation.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.219
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCahiers de la recherche sur les droits fondamentauxSame topicLegal processes and jurisprudenceFrench-language works237,207