Procédure Civile Québécoise – Quand Un Protocole En Chasse Un Autre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On 15 March 2023, the Quebec legislature passed an Act to improve the efficiency and accessibility of justice, in particular by promoting mediation and arbitration and by simplifying civil procedure in the Court of Québec. The changes made by the Act fall into three broad categories: some are new, such as the appointment of notaries to the bench, which until then had been reserved for members of the Bar; the Act also affects the Conseil de la magistrature, both in terms of its composition and its transparency; and lastly, the Act amends the Code of Civil Procedure through measures expressly mentioned in the title. What is missing from the title, however, is an objective that has recurred in the various metamorphoses of Quebec civil procedure over the years: speed. Perhaps the latter is subsumed under “simplicity”. To achieve its goals – simplicity and speed – the legislature has completely overhauled the procedure applicable to claims brought before the Court of Québec. It has not hesitated to do away with an instrument introduced some 20 years ago, known today as the “protocole de l’instance”, and has given greater importance to an unidentified procedural object, the “protocole préjudiciaire”.
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 | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.006 |
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".