Coup d’oeil sur les multiples facettes de l’intervention du juge dans le contrat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le tribunal peut intervenir dans les contrats de plusieurs manières : annulation d’une clause ou diminution de ses effets, réduction des obligations d’une partie, autorisation ou refus de l’exercice de la sanction d’une faute contractuelle et condamnation à des dommages-intérêts. Ces pouvoirs sont graduellement apparus avant la réforme du Code civil, et ils ont été renforcés par celle-ci. Il s’agit tantôt de faire respecter une liberté ou un droit fondamental, tantôt d’assurer plus de souplesse dans les sanctions de la faute ou encore de faire régner un minimum d’équité dans les relations contractuelles. D’une certaine manière, ces grands pouvoirs affaiblissent la force obligatoire des contrats et la stabilité contractuelle et déjouent les attentes légitimes des parties. Toutefois, une nouvelle culture contractuelle conciliant ces valeurs opposées est en train de s’implanter.
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".