MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016575383 · doi:10.7202/043878ar

Coup d’oeil sur les multiples facettes de l’intervention du juge dans le contrat

2005· article· fr· W2016575383 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Pierre-Gabriel Jobin

Bibliographic record

VenueLes Cahiers de droit · 2005
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal and Social Philosophy
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.726
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLes Cahiers de droitSame topicLegal and Social PhilosophyFrench-language works237,207