5Q IA CLARTÉ PLUMCr Qc : cinq questions permettant d’appréhender l’usage d’intelligence artificielle pour accroître la clarté du plumitif criminel québécois
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le plumitif est un registre judiciaire qui permet de garder une trace du deroulement de chacun des dossiers ouverts devant les tribunaux. Plusieurs etudes demontrent que son contenu est difficile a comprendre. Dans le present article, nous presentons une application web qui s’apparente aux logiciels de traduction de texte en ligne et qui permet de transformer le plumitif - un document qui consiste essentiellement en une serie d'abreviations difficiles a comprendre - en un texte clair et suivi. Pour apprehender les enjeux juridiques relatifs a cette preuve de concept, nous nous proposons de repondre aux cinq grandes questions suivantes : qu’est-ce que le plumitif ? Qu’est-ce que la clarte en droit? Pourquoi la clarte du plumitif est-elle importante ? Quels sont les elements qui nuisent a la clarte du plumitif et comment la technologie peut-elle etre un allie pour y remedier ? Quels sont les enjeux a considerer pour l’implantation de nouvelles technologies dans le contexte du plumitif ?
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 | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.006 |
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".