MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2050473596 · doi:10.7202/042465ar

Regards sur le nouveau droit de la famille au Canada anglais et au Québec

2005· article· en· W2050473596 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Denyse Guay-Archambault

Bibliographic record

VenueLes Cahiers de droit · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticultural Socio-Legal Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCivil codeLegislationLawCivil law (Civil law)Common lawStatutory lawPolitical scienceProperty lawIndividualismPrivate lawComparative lawPublic lawProperty rights

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The English origin of the law in the Common law jurisdictions in Canada makes it mandatory to study common law and English statutory law. It is through those that we can follow the development of a family property law in English Canada. Starting from an individualistic view of the spouses' property, we shall witness the emergence of the idea of « family assets » which has been « enshrined » in recent legislation. The law of Québec has evolved differently. Though of Trench origin, it has not kept as near its mother-country as its neighbour's has done with English law. Turthermore, due to its civilian character, its principles of private law are to be found in the Civil Code. This favours a different approach. That is why we will generally confine our study to those rules which are to be found in the Code civil du Bas-Canada and to the newly adopted Code civil du Québec. We will see what has become of the original community of property and compare the present law of Québec with recent legislation in English Canada.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.512

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0170.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLes Cahiers de droit→Same topicMulticultural Socio-Legal Studies→French-language works237,207→