Bibliographic record
Abstract
Au nom du libre choix et de l'égalité, les couples de même sexe revendiquent de plus en plus ouvertement le droit au mariage. Pour l'instant, seuls les Pays-Bas ont retenu cette solution. Déchirés entre les tendances libérales et conservatrices, la plupart des États ont plutôt opté pour une solution mitoyenne en instituant ce qu'il est aujourd'hui convenu d'appeler le partenariat civil. La présente étude comparative vise à mettre en lumière les caractéristiques propres à quatre régimes de partenariat civil, répartis sur deux continents : le Pacte civil de solidarité (PACS) français, la Cohabitation légale belge, le Civil Union de l'État du Vermont aux États-Unis et le Domestic partnership de la province de la Nouvelle-Ecosse au Canada. Eu égard aux objectifs poursuivis par les couples de même sexe, peut-on identifier des formules gagnantes parmi les expériences législatives amorcées ? Telle est la question que pourrait utilement soulever cette étude comparative et à laquelle l'auteur tente, en conclusion, d'apporter certains éléments de réponse.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 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".