MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989241908 · doi:10.7202/1026983ar

Reopening the Langelier—Mignault Debate on Unauthorized Transactions Involving a Minor's Property

2014· article· en· W1989241908 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Joshua A. Krane, Michael H. Lubetsky

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue générale de droit · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMinor (academic)Section (typography)AuthorizationProperty (philosophy)LawMajor and minorPolitical scienceLaw and economicsBusinessSociologyComputer securityPhilosophyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Under section 213 C.C.Q., immovables, enterprises, and important pieces of family property belonging to a minor can only be sold in cases of necessity, and only then with prior authorization from the court or the tutorship council. What is the legal status, therefore, of a contract of sale of a minor's property made by his tutor in violation of this provision? This question inspired a vigorous debate in both France and Quebec throughout the nineteenth century. Mignault "settled'' this debate in 1896 by declaring such a contract to be tainted with relative nullity. Now, over a century later, the law's attitude toward the protection of minors has changed significantly, which makes it appropriate to revisit Mignault's thesis. This paper argues that the sanction of relative nullity is inconsistent with both the text and underlying policy objectives of the section, and that an alternative approach must be adopted.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.024
Scholarly communication0.0120.007
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0160.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue générale de droitSame topicLegal principles and applicationsFrench-language works237,207