Les poursuites stratégiques contre la mobilisation publique : l'activisme citoyen et la juridicisation du politique au Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation is intended as a discursive, empirical and theoretical analysis of a social campaign that has mobilized citizen and social groups from Quebec against a specific practice of legal intimidation targeting politically active citizens. It looks at the social constitution of a socio-legal problematic and at the translation of this problematic into a social, political and legal issue that has captured the attention of activists, media, lawyers and policy-makers for more than three years. Central to the elaboration of this problematic was the concept of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs). As such, this dissertation discusses the concept of strategic lawsuit against public participation, addresses the conceptual difficulties inherent to the notion, synthesizes the various social, political and psychological issues associated with SLAPP suits, and offers a review of the rights and freedoms threatened by this practice of legal intimidation. It further addresses the processes by which politically active citizens are bullied out of a public sphere of political debate and confined into a legal arena of private action.This dissertation draws extensively on social movement literature and conceptualizes social protest as communicative and cognitive phenomena. It further addresses issues of legal mobilization, rights and legal consciousness, rights discourse, and legal strategies. It aims at theorizing and understanding the processes by which the legal system is instrumentalized politically- both by and against activists- in order to generate or block social change, to alter power relations and to defend specific positions and interests. As such, it addresses the issue of juridification of politics in Quebec and Canada and questions the processes by which social and political controversies are displaced from what is generally conceived as public spaces of relative openness and transparency – the media, city halls, schools, parliaments, to name a few – and confined to the more opaque and narrow institution of the courtroom.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".