MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2046063052 · doi:10.7202/042251ar

La Cour suprême, la fiducie d'investissement et le prospectus

2005· article· en· W2046063052 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Robert Demers

Bibliographic record

VenueLes Cahiers de droit · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProspectusDamagesSupreme courtLawInvestment (military)Political scienceBusinessLaw and economicsEconomicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The possibility of establishing investment trusts in the Province of Québec was examined recently by the Supreme Court in the Higher case. Investment trusts, in Québec, are possibly created as a species of contract but as civil law trusts, they cannot be admitted. This point is well settled by the case. The court also examines the recourse in damages under article 1065 C.C. for inexecution of promises contained in a prospectus: the provincial courts were well familiar with recourses in delict in such cases but contractual relief, although suggested, was not clearly admitted. The case now offers a definite answer to this uncertainty.

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)0.007
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.866
Threshold uncertainty score0.314

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.016
Scholarly communication0.0100.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0080.006
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.275 · 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
GenreOther

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 droit→Same topicLegal principles and applications→French-language works237,207→