MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032958395 · doi:10.7202/042247ar

L'incidence de la nouvelle Loi sur les assurances sur les régimes matrimoniaux

2005· article· en· W2032958395 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Christiane Fortin-Houle, Madeleine Roy

Bibliographic record

VenueLes Cahiers de droit · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticultural Socio-Legal Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeneficiaryLawStatutory lawInterpretation (philosophy)Political scienceMeaning (existential)Statutory interpretationCivil codeSection (typography)CovenantBusinessPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On October 20, 1976, a new Insurance Act came into force in Québec. It was expected to solve, among other problems, most of those concerning the relationship between insurance law and matrimonial regimes and the interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions. Unfortunately, only a few articles in the marriage covenants section of the Civil Code were amended. This paper stresses the fact that the main problem in insurance law is the definition of basic elements, such as the policy, the proceeds, the owner and the beneficiary, and that the new act has failed to clarify the meaning of those terms. The paper analyses the notions of policy and proceeds, with regard to the partnership of acquests and the community of moveables and acquests, and comes to the conclusion that, although effective for insurers, the new act has not solved problems raised by the cases and the authorities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.729
Threshold uncertainty score0.545

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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