La justice de proximité : des transformations en matière d’accès à la justice vues sous l’angle de la gouvernance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les réformes du système de justice en vue d’améliorer l’accès à la justice ont entraîné la création d’une justice de proximité. Si les principes d’indépendance et d’impartialité de la justice moderne s’accommodent plutôt mal de cette notion de proximité, une conception postmoderne de la justice poursuit la quête de l’accès à la justice par l’entremise du développement d’une justice de proximité dans le contexte de la gouvernance. Le présent article propose ainsi de comprendre la justice de proximité selon la perspective du droit de la gouvernance. Les exigences de la gouvernance définissent la justice de proximité en termes de proximité territoriale, temporelle, participative, structurelle, processuelle et réflexive. Cette typologie permet d’analyser certains phénomènes de justice, tels que les cours municipales, les tribunaux administratifs, les programmes d’accompagnement justice et santé mentale en matière criminelle et les centres de justice de proximité.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".