La déférence, le contrôle judiciaire et la pandémie : mise en scène pour un débat sur le couvre-feu Québécois
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Il est impossible de débattre du couvre-feu instauré au Québec et des autres mesures de santé publique liées à la COVID-19 sans étudier plus attentivement le traitement judiciaire des contestations des restrictions pandémiques. Les juges ont toujours fait preuve d'une grande déférence envers les choix politiques du gouvernement pendant la pandémie, à la fois envers l'expertise des responsables de la santé et la bonne foi démocratique des ministres élus. Lorsque les tribunaux ont invalidé les excès de l'exécutif, ils l’ont fait partiellement et n'ont pas remis en cause la politique de lutte contre la pandémie. Les débats sur la pertinence des mesures de santé publique, en relation avec la COVID-19 et les futures pandémies, devraient donc être canalisés dans les forums politiques.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".