Code et famille : avant-garde ou fixité ? Codification, Don Quichotte et autres histoires
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’article qui suit explore trois périodes de codification du droit de la famille au Québec, celle de 1866, celle du Code civil du Québec et la réforme de 2002. Malgré les différentes philosophies législatives à l’oeuvre lors de ces exercices de codification, l’auteure constate que la codification du droit de la famille participe d’une logique particulière. Son article démontre que le processus de codification du droit de la famille s’est transformé et qu’un nombre accru d’acteurs sociaux participe dorénavant au processus de production des normes. Malgré cette évolution, les juristes continuent de justifier les règles entourant la conjugalité et la filiation sur la base d’arguments transcendants, voire naturalistes. La rigidité des catégories ainsi créées limite la possibilité de renouvellement et d’évolution de ce domaine du droit.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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".