MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405178205 · doi:10.4000/12vgj

Les cliniques juridiques : l’expérience canadienne

2015· book-chapter· fr· W4405178205 on OpenAlexaffabout
Bernard Duhaime

Bibliographic record

VenuePresses universitaires de Caen eBooks · 2015
Typebook-chapter
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Education and Practice Innovations
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ce texte analyse l’approche clinique comme une méthode pédagogique particulièrement bien adaptée à l’enseignement du droit international des droits de la personne. Il aborde la place et le rôle de ces cliniques dans le contexte plus large de la mondialisation. Il discute enfin de l’apport de cette approche pour préparer les étudiants à la défense des droits et les amener à s’interroger sur l’efficacité du droit pour engendrer des changements sociaux et sur le rôle du juriste dans la société.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.940
Threshold uncertainty score0.120

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0170.024
Scholarly communication0.0170.009
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0090.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.004

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.250 · 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
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
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePresses universitaires de Caen eBooksSame topicLegal Education and Practice InnovationsFrench-language works237,207