Les pouvoirs de l'exécuteur testamentaire : étendue maximale et durée
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A testator can increase or diminish the extent as well as the duration of the powers provided an executor by the Civil Code of Quebec. However, regardless of how positive the formula that he uses may be, he cannot grant absolute and arbitrary powers. That is true whether one considers the executor the agent of the deceased or of the legatees. In effect, it is the purpose of the administration of a testamentary estate which dictates the solution. Since that purpose is to carry out the will of the deceased, the first duty of the executor is to attempt to assure the legatee or the heir the largest possible patrimony. In any case, the executor would not be freed from the control which a request for his dismissal represents unless he should be a residuary legatee. A clause which would have that as its purpose would be considered null and void as contrary to public order and good morals. Moreover, the duration of the administration of an estate can never be prolonged once the administration has been completed even if the testator had foreseen an administration of a longer duration. The only difference the formula used by the testator could make (the possibility of prolounging longer than necessary the administation of the estate) would be to influence the burden of proof which, in one case, would fall on the executor and, in the other, on the heirs or legatees.
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 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.005 |
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".