LA CYBERJUSTICE COMME RÉPONSE AUX BESOINS JURIDIQUES DES PERSONNES ITINÉRANTES: SON POTENTIEL ET SES EMBÛCHES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le présent texte cherche à déterminer si le développement de la cyberjustice améliorera ou compromettra l’accès à la justice pour les personnes en situation d’itinérance. Nous commencerons par une revue détaillée de la littérature actuelle sur la cyberjustice, pour ensuite présenter notre définition de la cyberjustice et de son rôle dans la promotion de l’accès à la justice. Dans une dernière section davantage exploratoire, nous élaborerons quelques propositions informelles de réponse à la question formulée précédemment – à savoir si la cyberjustice, dans ses formes actuelles, peut contribuer à répondre aux besoins juridiques des personnes en situation d’itinérance. Ces réponses seront évaluées dans une recherche ultérieure.\n\n \n\nThis aim of this paper is to determine whether the expansion of cyberjustice will improve or impede access to justice for individuals who are homeless. We begin with a detailed review of the current literature on cyberjustice, followed by our definition of cyberjustice and the role it plays in promoting access to justice. The last section, which is more exploratory in nature, offers a number of informal proposals for answering the question of whether cyberjustice, in its present forms, can help to meet the legal needs of homeless persons. Further research will be done in order to evaluate those answers.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 teacher head, 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".