Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les tribunaux judiciaires québécois doivent souvent composer avec l’émotivité inhérente à certains dossiers judiciarisés. Pourtant, la perception de leur fonctionnement serait idéalement celle d’un milieu neutre, impartial, voire imperturbable, où les litiges trouveraient une fin conforme au droit et où un équilibre serait restauré entre les parties. Dans ce contexte, les règles du Code de procédure civile sont-elles un environnement propice à la présence de sentiments ? La réflexion à ce sujet a amené l’auteure à s’intéresser à la question de la sérénité, sentiment historiquement associé à la représentation idéale de l’instance judiciaire et de son décideur, ainsi que des effets du jugement. En étudiant de façon prospective un échantillon du discours judiciaire et législatif québécois, l’auteure propose une illustration de la présence discrète, mais durable, de ce sentiment dans la conception idéale du système judiciaire.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".