MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011344008 · doi:10.7202/042436ar

Les lignes de force de la Loi 89 instituant un nouveau Code civil et portant réforme du droit de la famille

2005· article· en· W2011344008 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Marie-José Longtin

Bibliographic record

VenueLes Cahiers de droit · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticultural Socio-Legal Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislatorLegislationBalance (ability)Political scienceLawOrder (exchange)Flexibility (engineering)Code (set theory)Civil codeGender equalityIntervention (counseling)Law and economicsSociologyComputer scienceMathematicsPsychologySet (abstract data type)Gender studiesBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The family law reform is based upon several principles among which the legislation seeks to create a certain balance. The new legislation approaches the question of that balance under four themes : 1. The equality between man and woman - an equality sometimes intruded upon in order to protect one of the spouses or to strengthen his or her self-determination ; 2. the spouses' freedom to arrange their family relations as they see fit, but a freedom limited by several mandatory rules in order to ensure a greater measure of equality for each ; 3. the equality between children regardless of the circumstances of their birth or their form of filiation - an equality strengthened by rules devised to protect their interests ; 4. the increased intervention of the judiciary authaurised mostly for promotive self-reconciliation by the parties. The following comments try to illustrate how these four principles are embodied in book two of the Civil Code of Quebec, book which must be construed according to the Legislator's expressed view for overriding equality, simplicity and flexibility.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.630
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLes Cahiers de droitSame topicMulticultural Socio-Legal StudiesFrench-language works237,207