Le futur de la preuve: perspective canadienne en temps de pandémie (The Future of Evidence Law: Canadian Perspective in Pandemic Times)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: La pandemie a justifie et continue de justifier un virage rapide des litiges vers l’univers technologique. Ce virage fut-il accelere par la pandemie ou doit-on plutot considerer la pandemie comme constituant le catalyseur d’une transformation deja amorcee depuis plusieurs annees? Nous ne sommes pas convaincus de la reponse a donner a cette question. Le virage est a priori porteur d’efficience dans l’administration de la justice, une efficience necessaire en temps d’austerite pandemique . L’objectif du present article est d’apprecier la nature et l’etendue de la transformation de la justice civile et des mutations au droit de la preuve vecues en temps de pandemie, afin de proposer (ou de « laisser flotter ») des idees quant au regime de preuve du futur, pour faire echo a la citation de Friedman en rubrique. De fait, ce sont ces idees qui permettront de structurer le cadre normatif applicable a la preuve une fois la pandemie derniere nous. Ainsi, la partie I aborde les transformations de la justice et mutations inherentes a la preuve, en passant par les transformations generales et specifiques de la justice civile ainsi que la theorie du changement. La partie II aborde l’evolution des rituels et principes fondamentaux du droit judiciaire au gre de la pandemie. Cette partie inclut une analyse de certains principes fondamentaux propres au droit de la preuve qui ont ete particulierement affectes par la pandemie. La partie III sert de conclusion en suggerant trois grande propositions de lignes directrices du droit de la preuve futur, lesquelles sont coherentes avec les valeurs pandemiques. English Abstract: The objective of this article is to assess the nature and extent of the transformation of civil justice and of the changes in the law of evidence experienced in times of pandemic in order to structure a framework for a future regime of evidence. Part I deals with the transformations of justice and the mutations inherent in the law of evidence, including considerations relative to the theory of change. Part II discusses the evolution of rituals and fundamental principles of judicial law as the pandemic unfolds. This part includes an analysis of certain fundamental principles specific to the law of evidence that have been particularly affected by the pandemic. Part III serves as a conclusion by suggesting three broad proposals for future evidence law that are consistent with pandemic values.
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 | 0.015 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.066 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".