Bibliographic record
Abstract
Au regard du discours jurisprudentiel et doctrinal, il y a lieu de croire qu’une catégorie de l’obligation contractuelle émerge à l’heure actuelle : l’obligation essentielle. En effet, une littérature abondante, en France plus qu’au Québec, valorise cette notion en tentant de la définir. Il n’en demeure pas moins que, étant donné l’importance tant quantitative que qualitative des éléments qui distinguent les définitions doctrinales proposées, aucune d’elles ne saurait être reçue à titre autonome. Force est par ailleurs d’admettre que les nombreuses incertitudes et critiques de la notion rendent malaisée la tâche de saisir sa réelle signification. Dans l’article qui suit, après avoir présenté certaines définitions doctrinales et les principales incertitudes qui planent autour de la notion, l’auteure tentera de dégager son véritable sens par l’étude des utilités qui lui sont prêtées. Elle constatera alors que l’obligation essentielle a taillé sa place au sein de l’ensemble de plus en plus ample et recherché des restrictions à la liberté contractuelle.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".