MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3111184962 · doi:10.35562/cliothemis.198

Vérité judiciaire et stare decisis en droit privé québécois

2020· article· fr· W3111184962 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sylvette Guillemard

Bibliographic record

VenueClio Themis · 2020
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicComparative and International Law Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupreme courtHumanitiesJurisprudenceLawCommon lawPhilosophyPolitical scienceMeaning (existential)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La vérité judiciaire est-elle un concept uniforme, qui aurait le même sens, du moins la même portée, en common law et en droit civil ? Nous suggérons de répondre par la négative. L’expression aurait un sens plus exact en common law. Ce faisant, la vérité judiciaire est intimement liée au stare decisis qui la perpétue pour lui donner une portée générale et pérenne.Qu’en est-il au Québec, dont la procédure civile est hybride ? Est-elle tenue à cette obligation de propager au fil du temps la vérité judiciaire ou en est-elle affranchie ? La réponse n’est pas catégorique puisque la jurisprudence, jusqu’à celle de la Cour suprême du Canada, voit dans le droit québécois, une contrainte édulcorée de la règle du précédent.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.737
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.287 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClio ThemisSame topicComparative and International Law StudiesFrench-language works237,207