Sense of Access to Justice As a Framework for Civil Procedure Justice Reform: An Empirical Assessment of Judicial Settlement Conferences in Quebec (Canada)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An emerging worldwide civil procedure justice reform trend takes the user's point of view into account in order to promote access-tojustice and support for the rule of law. In the Canadian context, the Quebec civil law province has taken the lead to renew its legal culture towards a participatory justice, rooted in fair-minded processes that encourage the persons involved to play an active role. In an effort to monitor such ambitions, carried by the civil procedure code reforms of 2003 and 2014, our paper offers an empirical evaluation through the lens of litigant's "Sense of Access to Justice" ("SA"). We empirically tested this framework in settlement conferences conducted by Quebec trial court judges practicing under a facilitative integrative problem-solving approach. The results herein show that settlement conferences are evaluated by litigants and lawyers as fairminded processes, providing them with a sense of access to justice. This study provides a new framework and methodology to monitor the civil procedure justice reform and legal cultural shifts taking place in Quebec. Adaptations to other dispute resolution mechanisms and various jurisdictions seem promising. This study helps ascertain user's views, determining whether they are in support of public policies, private policies, or actions in response to the accessto-justice challenge.
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 | 0.010 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".