La modernité du droit commun des contrats dans le Code civil du Québec : Quelle modernité ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article offers an assessment of the reform of the Civil Code in Quebec in the area of the general law of obligations. In it the reader will find a comparative analysis of the Civil Code of Quebec with other civil codes and texts of a legislative nature in existence on the eve of its enactment (such as the Civil Code of the Netherlands and the Unidroit Principles on international commercial contracts). Undoubtedly the legislative instruments considered here have influenced the Quebec legislators on several subjects (namely for enacting the principle of good faith and sanctioning abusive clauses). However the author argues that the Civil Code of Quebec is far from being as modem as it was said to be. The legislators were not up to date on many major issues (for example lesion, determination of the price in formation of the contract, and hardship). One might think of the following explunations for these lacunae of the new code : the desire of the Quebec legislators to devise a classical civil code, free from provisions of commercial law and from narrow rules, a concern about the integrity of Quebec private law, or a policy of autonomy of the will and sanctity of contracts. The author disputes each of these justifications.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".