MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010061757 · doi:10.7202/042232ar

L'immixtion et la trop grande expertise du propriétaire, cause d'exonération de responsabilité des architectes et des entrepreneurs sous l'article 1688 C.C.

2005· article· en· W2010061757 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Michèle Rivet

Bibliographic record

VenueLes Cahiers de droit · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Issues in South Africa
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPresumptionSupreme courtLiabilityLawPolitical scienceHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In May 1977, the Supreme Court of Canada gave an authoritative judgment on the interpretation of article 1688 of the Civil Code dealing with the liability of the builder and the architect. In Davie Shipbuilding Ltd v. Cargill Grain Company Ltd and The Foundation Company of Canada Ltd, the court established a new method of rebutting the presumption of liability resulting from the article. Indeed, the Supreme Court found that where the owner intervened during the construction and was more qualified than the contractors in charge of the work to judge its quality, he could not invoke the presumption resulting from article 1688 C.C. and was responsible for any loss. The case is not an easy one — questions of law and facts are not simple in this dispute involving more than eleven million dollars.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.115

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.017
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0080.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.283 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLes Cahiers de droitSame topicLegal Issues in South AfricaFrench-language works237,207