MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042548331 · doi:10.7202/042439ar

Les preuves de la filiation

2005· article· en· W2042548331 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Jean Pineau

Bibliographic record

VenueLes Cahiers de droit · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth, Medicine and Society
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPresumptionPossession (linguistics)LegitimacyAction (physics)LawBodily integrityConsistency (knowledge bases)Law and economicsPolitical sciencePsychologySociologyComputer sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In adopting Bill 89, the National Assembly, while retaining most of the wording of the rules proposed by the Civil Code Revision Office, has changed their order and arrangement. This may entail substantive alterations. The first part of this paper shows that, on a first reading at least, the new provisions display some consistency. The terms « legitimacy » and « legitimate » are no longer used; children are treated alike, especially as regards the manner of proof whether they be born from wedlock or not. Maternity and paternity may now be proved by similar means. The various modes of proof are now hierarchically listed : first come acts of birth, followed in sequence of subsidiarity by possession of status, presumption as to the husband's paternity, and recognition. The traditional presumption is therefore significantly downgraded. In litigated cases, the action to disavow paternity is now open not only to the mother's husband, but also to the mother herself. Status may be challenged and a different one may be sought whenever the act of birth and possession of status are not congruent. Biological truth is given precedence over the protection of legitimacy In the second part of the paper, however, some inconsistencies in the new provisions are brought out. They relate mainly to two issues. The new provisions purportedly make no distinction between the proof of maternity and that of paternity. Yet, while maternity may be proved directly, the proof of paternity must remain somewhat uncertain, hence the use of presumptions. Most useful among these is the presumption as to the husband's paternity : yet the new provisions confine it to a very subsidiary role. According to the new scheme of rules, it is questionable whether anyone other than the mother's husband may rely on them to disavow paternity when his name appears on the act of birth. The new provisions also purport to abandon the concept of legitimacy. This, it might be claimed, entails the abandonment of marriage itself. Yet, not only does the new Code preserve marriage, but it also denies recognition to the union de fait. Neither have the presumption as to the husband's paternity, or the disavowal of children, been eradicated from the new provisions. The paper concludes by foreseeing many difficulties in the application of the new rules as to the proof of paternal filiation.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.006
Scholarly communication0.0120.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.010

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.358 · 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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLes Cahiers de droitSame topicHealth, Medicine and SocietyFrench-language works237,207