Made in Canada» : Distinctions culturelles de la protection des renseignements personnels canadienne
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RESUME La protection de la vie privee est assujettie a des valeurs, des institutions, des lois, qui sont intimement liees aux specificites culturelles propres a chacune des juridictions. Or, face a la globalisation de ce domaine a la mode, des comparaisons frequentes sont faites entre le droit europeen et le droit canadien. Dans le cadre de cet article, nous essayerons de montrer que « comparaison n’est pas raison » et que si des inspirations sont assurement possibles entre les deux regimes juridiques, il importe de ne pas denaturer le droit canadien tant au regard de ses principes substantiels qu’a celui des modalites d’application institutionnelle. ABSTRACT The protection of privacy is subject to values, institutions and laws that are intimately linked to the cultural specificities of each jurisdiction. However, given the globalization of this trendy field, comparisons are frequently made between European and Canadian law. In this article, we will try to show that “comparison do not provide all the answers” and that, while it is certainly possible to draw inspiration between the two legal systems, it is important not to distort Canadian law in terms of both its substantive principles and its institutional application.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".