Les aspects historiques de la qualification de la prescription en droit international privé
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article explore la qualification de la prescription sous un angle historique. Le but de l’auteur est de mettre en lumière les raisons ayant mené à l’adoption de l’article 3131 du Code civil du Québec et d’inviter à s’inspirer de ces raisons pour mieux décrire l’objet de la prescription. L’idée selon laquelle la prescription n’affecterait que la procédure en posant un obstacle au droit d’action a été abandonnée en droit international privé en raison de son artificialité et de l’injustice qu’elle est susceptible de provoquer. De plus, la confusion qui émaille l’histoire de cette qualification n’a rien pour favoriser la sécurité juridique. L’auteur suggère de réviser la dichotomie droit — action de manière à ce que les concepts choisis diminuent et non augmentent les risques d’injustice dans les litiges présentant un élément d’extranéité.
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 | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".