La règle sur les clauses abusives sous l’éclairage du droit comparé
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans la présente étude, l’auteur analyse les arguments employés par les juges québécois lorsqu’ils décident si une clause d’un contrat est abusive, selon l’article 1437 du Code civil du Québec. Cette analyse est inspirée de la distinction souvent employée en common law entre le volet processuel et le volet substantif de l’injustice contractuelle. Ainsi, les tribunaux ont recours à des facteurs substantiels pour évaluer le caractère abusif d’une clause, comme l’équivalence des prestations, la proportionnalité, la réciprocité, la commutativité, l’écart par rapport aux obligations habituelles ou à l’obligation essentielle et le lien de causalité. Cependant, ils se fondent aussi sur des critères processuels pour juger de l’abus, comme l’information donnée à l’adhérent au sujet du contenu du contrat et le respect des attentes raisonnables de l’adhérent.
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 | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".