Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay seeks to reevaluate the origins of the family patrimony by challenging the idea that the provisions introduced into the Civil Code of Québec in 1989 amounted to new law. The family patrimony is not simply a statutory trust borrowed maladroitly from Ontario, nor does it reflect a moral postulate that, prior to 1989, had no legal status. It may be argued, in advance of sociological study, that the family patrimony should be understood as reflecting customary norms that were already present in the Quebec legal order at the time of its enactment. Where wealth is accumulated by the spouses during the period that marriage is lived as a joint economic endeavour, rules of everyday law may require the sharing of certain property without regard to which of them has formal title thereto. These customary norms, obscured doctrinally by a modern disinclination among jurists to look beyond state-made law and its adjuncts in the regulation of married life, are potent sources of family property law. Once the manner in which everyday law complements the formal law of matrimonial property is made plain, it becomes apparent that the claim to a share of the family patrimony is not, in fact, a break with tradition in Quebec's Civil law of family property.
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 | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.055 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".