MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281632400 · doi:10.3917/tvii.008.0044

Utilité et limites des objectifs de valeur constitutionnelle sur le plan contentieux

2022· article· fr· W4281632400 on OpenAlexaff
Gérald Sutter

Bibliographic record

VenueTitre VII · 2022
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Law and Evidence
Canadian institutionsBibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’utilité contentieuse des objectifs de valeur constitutionnelle (OVC) est avérée : ils permettent non seulement au juge constitutionnel d’admettre certaines atteintes à des principes constitutionnels, mais aussi, plus rarement, de sanctionner le législateur en cas de méconnaissance d’un tel objectif. La principale limite des OVC, inhérente à cette catégorie particulière de normes, demeure l’impossibilité pour les justiciables de s’en prévaloir devant le juge. Toutefois, la spécificité de l’usage contentieux de l’objectif d’accessibilité et d’intelligibilité de la loi pourrait justifier de l’élever au rang de principe constitutionnel à part entière.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.014
Scholarly communication0.0100.008
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.102
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.198 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTitre VIISame topicCriminal Law and EvidenceFrench-language works237,207