Bibliographic record
Abstract
Until recently, the rule in Quebec was that an immoveable could not be the object of a commercial operation. For many years, this anachronic rule had major effects on a number of key sectors of the law. Although unanimously criticised by academics, it was still largely applied by the courts. In 1965, a new trend appeared with the key decision of Colonia Development v. Belliveau, according to which the Court of Appeal departed for the first time from the traditional pattern, applying a new test wholly based on the purpose of the parties in entering into the agreement and refraining, by the same way, from holding that contracts in respect to immoveables were per se a civil matter. Three recent decisions of the Court of Appeal confirmed this precedent and applied it to situations involving different aspects of immoveable transactions. These decisions repeatedly adopted the purpose test definitely prefering the subjective approach to commercial activities over the objective one. This settled another important controversy between academics. After a general review of the situation since the Colonia Development case, the article spots a new dark area in the field and tries to draw a new line between civil and commercial transactions, especially when an immoveable is concerned.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".