Le droit constitutionnel aux communications et aux services publics fédéraux dans la langue officielle de son choix
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Selon les enseignements de la Cour suprême du Canada, le droit d’employer le français ou l’anglais prévu au paragraphe 20(1) de la Charte pour communiquer avec les institutions fédérales et pour en recevoir les services doit s’interpréter de façon large et libérale en fonction de son objet culturel et réparateur afin de modifier le statu quo et de favoriser l’égalité réelle en la matière. Dans cette optique, une analyse de la jurisprudence pertinente permet de mieux définir le contenu de ce droit, mais également d’en apprécier la portée et le plein potentiel. À cette fin, cette analyse nous révèle que ce droit constitutionnel s’étend le long d’un spectre allant de services identiques à des services différents pour chacune des communautés de langue officielle, et ce, afin de réaliser pleinement l’égalité linguistique réelle.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
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".