MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4368256540 · doi:10.35562/alyoda.6286

Conclusions du rapporteur public

2016· article· fr· W4368256540 on OpenAlexaff
Jean-Paul Vallecchia

Bibliographic record

Venuerevue Alyoda · 2016
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Systems and Practices
Canadian institutionsCarbon Engineering (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’Association LYonnaise de Droit Administratif - ALYODA réunit des magistrats et membres de la cour administrative d’appel de Lyon, des enseignants-chercheurs de l'université Jean Moulin Lyon 3 et des avocats du barreau de Lyon. Elle édite une revue de jurisprudence gratuite et en ligne, rassemblant les décisions les plus significatives de la cour administrative d'appel de Lyon et des tribunaux administratifs de son ressort (Clermont-Ferrand, Dijon, Grenoble et Lyon), accompagnés de résumés et abstrats, des conclusions prononcées par les rapporteurs publics. Ces décisions font l’objet de commentaires rédigés par des universitaires (professeurs, maîtres de conférences, doctorants, étudiants en master 2) et des avocats ou élèves-avocats. La lecture de la décision dans son intégralité est rendue possible par un renvoi vers le site Légifrance ou celui des juridictions. Les références des décisions indiquent la chambre qui a statué, le n° de l'affaire, la date de la décision, le nom des parties (nom des personnes physiques anonymisées) et le critère de classement jurisprudentiel (R = intérêt jurisprudentiel majeur ; C+ = intérêt jurisprudentiel signalé ; C = sans intérêt jurisprudentiel particulier mais pouvant présenter un autre intérêt, historique, sociologique, médiatique…).

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.201

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0060.006
Scholarly communication0.0250.014
Open science0.0030.009
Research integrity0.0110.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0600.013

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 head0.209
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuerevue AlyodaSame topicHealthcare Systems and PracticesFrench-language works237,207