Consolidation et rupture: les ambiguïtés de la réforme des contrats nommés
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les contrats nommés occupent, avec la réforme du droit des obligations que nous propose le législateur québécois, une place de choix en droit privé contemporain. Le droit positif qui est mis de l'avant fait, pour l'essentiel, oeuvre de consolidation. L'on note ainsi un mouvement de publicisation accru du droit privé, le législateur reprenant à cet égard les thèmes de la solidarité contractuelle et de l'objectivation du contrat. Ce phénomène se double d'une atomisation prononcée du droit des contrats, la matière de ceux-ci se voyant divisée en dix-huit blocs étanches. Il demeure que c'est cependant sur le plan de l'expression de la réforme que les ruptures avec la tradition civiliste sont les plus fortement ressenties. Tant en raison du style, emprunté à la tradition de common law que de la langue, opaque et incohérente, le législateur met en danger la crédibilité même de son entreprise de codification.
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 | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.062 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".