Lanceur d’alerte ou informateur de police : quand le statut du dénonciateur influence le régime de protections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
À partir d’une analyse croisée des sources normatives et jurisprudentielles, du droit souple et des rapports institutionnels, cet article met en lumière les lacunes du régime canadien de protection des lanceurs d’alerte. En s’appuyant sur la logique institutionnelle du privilège de l’informateur en droit criminel, il soutient que le statut du dénonciateur devrait poursuivre la même finalité, à savoir assurer l’efficacité des mécanismes de divulgation, prévenir les représailles et alléger les contraintes probatoires. Le modèle proposé associe des garanties de confidentialité à une présomption légale de lien causal entre la divulgation et le traitement défavorable, afin de rééquilibrer la charge et le poids de la preuve.
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 | 0.020 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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".