Essai sur le rôle des principes de prévention et de précaution dans la reconnaissance d’un droit positif à un environnement sain et respectueux de la biodiversité au Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Legislative action regarding environmental protection in Québec is characterized by the establishment of wide discretionary powers, which allow the governement to maintain a healthful environment in which biodiversity is preserved to the extent that it has previously determined. However, this situation does not go without critics, such definition of environmental rights and powers have proven ill-adapted in many respects to deal with modern ecological issues. This essay aims to put forth another interpretation of the rules constituting Quebec’s environmental law. It is argued that the Sustainable Development Act, which was enacted in 2006, can be interpreted so as to transform the paradigm of environmental law, even so far as to systematize this legal subsystem. More specifically, this paper try to demonstrate that the principles of prevention and precaution provided for by this Act, far from being only incentive principles, can be interpreted as imposing an underlying duty to the Administration’s powers to maximize the probability of maintaining a healthy environment. Associated with provision 46.1 of Quebec Charter of human rights and freedoms, which should, however, be reinterpreted so as to secure the overall environmental rights and duties to the liability regime provided for by this fundamental law, these principles would thus constitute the substance of a right to a healthy environment in which biodiversity is preserved. The second part of this essay aims to consider the content of such a duty, and to foresee the consequences of its judicial application.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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".