La Loi sur les connaissements, les reçus et les cessions de biens en stock : quelques problèmes substantiels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recent adoption of An Act respecting the transfer of property in stock has raised once again the controversy on the exact nature of the rights acquired by the holder of a bill of lading and a warehouse receipt. This problem is a familiar one for the specialist in banking law who well knows the endless contradictions concerning the interpretation of article 178 of the Bank Act. In this instance, the provincial legislature wished to give to quasi-banks (credit unions) the same possibility of securing loans as that afforded to banks under federal legislation. By a rather clever set of new rules added to the provincial Bills of Lading Act, this result is attained and is predicated on the idea that the creditor obtains full title of ownership on the goods ceded to him in the contract of loan. However, even in common law jurisdictions, the complete transfer of title is rarely admitted in such transactions and in codifying this dubious interpretation of case law, the legislature is perhaps not simplifying an already muddled area of our private law. Viewed in a historical perspective, Quebec law on this subject tends to reconcile the rights of the endorsee with those of civil law institutions, i.e. pledge. One hundred years of jurisprudence stands to that effect, until the '50s, where common law ideas seem to have taken hold of the courts. The result is of course a little bewildering and the student of our laws must gather together all of his patience in the study of this area already described early in the century by Mignault as being a Chinese brain-teaser.
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 | 0.020 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.085 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.003 |
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".