CLP, CSST et chartes : qui doit faire quoi?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, the Superior court of Québec challenged the traditional stance of the "Commission des lésions professionnelles", the CLP, regarding the notion of "good and sufficient reason" contained in article 255 of an Act respecting industrial accidents and occupational diseases, the Act. By stating that a reason cannot be "good" if it is contrary to the Quebec Charter of human rights and freedoms, the Court forces the CLP to interprete this concept in accordance with a legislation it is not used to apply. From that example, the author identifies other "soft" concepts in the Act and in an Act respecting occupational health and safety that are likely to command integration of notions developed und er the charters. She also points out that this line of questioning, which is not intended to nullify subject acts but rather to enjoin deciders to apply chart principles, is likely to be faced by first tier deciders at the "Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail", the CSST. She applies this distinction to the CSST and to the CLP in order to determine who does what with respect to charter issues .
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 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".