Bibliographic record
Abstract
L'étude des dispositions de l'Avant-projet concernant l'évaluation des dommages a été orientée à partir de deux axes différents. D'une part, l'Avant-projet contient-il des règles de droit positif dont l'abandon aurait été souhaitable ? La double règle d'évaluation en matière contractuelle (débiteur de bonne foi versus débiteur de mauvaise foi), de même que la consécration des dommages-intérêts exemplaires sont examinés sous cet angle. D'autre part, l'Avant-projet va-t-il assez loin dans ses propositions de réforme ? Les dispositions touchant l'évaluation du préjudice corporel sont ici en cause. Le mode de versement de l'indemnité ainsi que la fixation législative du taux d'actualisation constituent les meilleurs exemples où, de l'avis de l'auteur, des précisions et améliorations pourraient être apportées.
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 | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".