MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087089200 · doi:10.7202/042198ar

Résolution d'une promesse de vente immobilière: nécessité de l'avis de 60 jours

2005· article· en· W2087089200 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Thérèse Rousseau-Houle

Bibliographic record

VenueLes Cahiers de droit · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean and International Contract Law
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNoticeDebtorAppealCreditorDeedIndemnityLawBusinessPolitical scienceLaw and economicsSociologyFinanceDebt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This appeal was originally heard by a bench of three judges and, afterwards, considered by a bench of nine in an effort to resolve recent contradictory decisions. It was held that the possessor of an immovable under a promise of sale authorizing the promising vendor to retake possession of the property without compensation or indemnity in the event of failure by the promising purchaser to fulfil his obligations under the deed, is entitled to the sixty-day notice prescribed by articles 1040a and following of the Civil code. In the matter, the creditor, did not serve, as required by articles 1040a and 1040d C.c, the 60 days notice on the possessor with promise of sale. The fact that it would be pointless for the creditor to register the notice against his own property upon which the debtor had yet no registered right of ownership has no bearing, in the Court's opinion, upon the conclusion that the creditor is not obliged to give a 60 day notice to the debtor.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0100.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0030.009
Research integrity0.0240.020
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.003

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 head0.271
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 droitSame topicEuropean and International Contract LawFrench-language works237,207