L’autorisation de L’action Collective : Raisons D’être, Application et Changements À Venir
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Authorization, Quebec’s equivalent to certification, has become an issue of particular interest since Bich J expressed the need for the legislator to rethink this procedure in a recent obiter dictum. Despite its limited purpose of filtering frivolous demands and ensuring the protection of members, authorization appears to have become a much larger mechanism. In this article, the author analyzes the foundations of this procedure and examines the latest jurisprudence to identify relevant characteristics in the application of the authorization criteria. It is argued that the two-step procedure could be eliminated, and the evaluation of the authorization criteria be integrated to the trial itself, without compromising the rights of the parties. L’autorisation des actions collectives québécoises est devenue un sujet d’intérêt particulier depuis que l’honorable Bich exprima la nécessité du législateur de repenser cette procédure dans un obiter dictum récent. Malgré des objectifs limités, l’étape d’autorisation semble être devenue un mécanisme complexe. Dans cet article, l’auteur analyse les raisons d’être de cette procédure et examine la jurisprudence récente, afin d’identifier des caractéristiques dans l’application des critères d’autorisation. Il est soutenu que la procédure en deux étapes pourrait être éliminée, et que l’évaluation des critères pourrait s’intégrer au procès et ce, sans compromettre les droits des parties.
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 | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".