Bibliographic record
Abstract
La quérulence fait partie des abus de la procédure, introduits au Code de procédure civile en 2009. Le présent article expose les composantes de cette « pathologie judiciaire » en présentant quelques spécimens issus de la jurisprudence tout en recourant à des notions simples de psychologie. L’examen des sanctions prévues aux articles 53 à 55 permettra de vérifier que les mesures prises par le codificateur limitent indiscutablement les dégâts causés par ces plaideurs indélicats sans toutefois éradiquer le problème. Une solution qui vise, elle aussi, à circonscrire les ardeurs des plaideurs obsessionnels sera alors proposée, soit le recours obligatoire aux services d’un membre du Barreau lorsque ces plaideurs sont officiellement déclarés quérulents et inscrits au registre ad hoc. Le texte se termine par une pensée pour les victimes de ces « fous judiciaires ».
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".