Credo, Credere, Credidi, Creditum: Essai de Phénoménologie des Sûretés Réelles (Phenomenology of Real Securities)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: D’abord nous aborderons la conceptions des surete du droit quebecois et de la doctrine francaise dominante pour en faire ressortir la confusion et les atavismes. Nous presenterons ensuite brievement l’approche teleologique mise de l’avant par le law nord americain et par le droit federal canadien (I). A la lumiere de notre critique du modele civiliste classique, nous proposerons ensuite une interpretation “phenomenologique” du droit quebecois des suretes reelles. En nous appuyant sur les deux grands types d’attenuation possible au principe du gage commun des creanciers, nous nous efforcerons de montrer que les hypotheques et les proprietes-suretes participent de la meme finalite et devraient, pour cette raison, faire l’objet d’un encadrement legislatif respectant cette proximite conceptuelle (II).English Abstract: First we show how the dominant classification of security rights on property is confused and atavistic in Quebec and French legal doctrine. We then briefly address the teleological conception of security rights exemplified in Canadian federal law and in North American Common Law (I). In light of our critique of the classical civilian model, we offer a phenomenological interpretation of real security in Quebec Law. Our interpretation is premised on the distinction between the two main ways to attenuate the common pledge of the creditors principle. We argue that that hypothecs and property-securities partake from the same finality and should, by reason of this conceptual proximity, be regulated in a similar fashion.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".