La soif de certitude et la peur du chaos dans la réforme du droit des contrats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article aborde l’étude des débats ayant entouré l’adoption du Code civil du Québec comme des lieux d’expression de luttes relatives à la redéfinition ou à la réaffirmation de la doxa de la communauté juridique québécoise. Il se fonde sur une analyse rhétorique des stratégies argumentaires développées par le Barreau et la Chambre des notaires du Québec devant la Sous-commission des institutions relativement à l’étude de l’avant-projet de loi sur les obligations, à l’automne 1988, dans le but d’en dégager les représentations sous-jacentes et de rendre compte du caractère acceptable des orientations législatives préconisées. Les débats parlementaires permettent ainsi de mettre en lumière la vision des rapports entre droit privé et rapports économiques qui sous-tend les arguments énoncés par les ordres professionnels.
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 | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".