Les conjoints de fait au Québec : protection juridique ou paternalisme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the book Les conjoints de fait au Quebec : vers un encadrement legal , the author, a practitioner in family law with twenty-five years of experience, addresses the question of the legal protection of common law spouses in Quebec, a province where more than one-third of all couples are not married and 60 percent of children are born out of wedlock. The Quebec Civil Code does not offer protections to common law spouses in the event of separation. To correct the injustice of the situation of unmarried women, the author proposes that alimony be awarded to the parent (most often a woman) who has custody of the children post-separation. Abstract: Dans l’ouvrage Les conjoints de fait au Quebec : vers un encadrement legal , l’auteure, une praticienne en droit de famille depuis plus de 25 ans, se penche sur la question de la protection des conjoint-e-s de fait au Quebec, ou plus du tiers des couples vivent en union de fait et 60 % des enfants naissent hors mariage. Le Code civil du Quebec ne reconnait pas l’union de fait et en cas de rupture, les conjoints de fait ne sont pas proteges des consequences pecuniaires de celle-ci. Pour corriger la situation d’injustice que vivent souvent les conjointes de fait, elle propose d’imposer une obligation alimentaire pour le parent qui s’est investi dans le soin aux enfants, habituellement la femme, en cas de rupture de couples non maries.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".