La garantie des constructeurs en droit Franco-Québécois : perspective pour un modèle européen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La comparaison entre des systemes civilistes et, plus particulierement, la Province de Quebec et la France, permet de confronter des experiences diverses au service de la construction de l'Union europeenne. La methode comparatiste peut, dans une approche regulatrice, permettre de realiser une veritable integration commune pour une matiere comme la construction, au service des citoyens. Dans une perspective d'innovation legislative, il s'agirait donc de modeliser des structures juridiques coherentes pour une veritable Union europeenne de la construction. La participation des constructeurs est requise aux debats, afin de faciliter l'integration et l'application de la future norme commune, avec le concours d'une institution europeenne dediee. Mais comment respecter les diversites nationales, tout en cherchant a elaborer un principe « unioniste » dans l'objectif d'une harmonisation des delais au sein des Etats membres de l'Union europeenne ? La trop grande diversite des delais specifiques, dans le secteur de la construction, suscite en effet au sein de l'Union europeenne la volonte de faire emerger un modele europeen, source future de stabilite et de prosperite.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".