Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tout juge qui aurait eu a etablir la certitude morale de l'invalidite d'un mariage sous le chef de simulation totale selon les normes du Code de 1917 connait bien les difficultes a en etablir la preuve. La jurisprudence traitant des chefs de defaut de discernement et d'incapacite d'assumer les obligations du mariage s'est considerablement pendant les annees soixante jusqu'a l'inclusion de ces chefs dans le Code de 1983. Mais peu a peu, de nouveaux termes apparentes a la notion de simulation virent le jour, tels le consentement inadequat, le manque d'engagement, la non-inclusion; la personne peut bien posseder le discernement adequat pour poser un consentement valide, mais l'a-t-elle exerce? A partir de ces nouvelles perspectives, l'A. examine les differences entre la simulation totale et partielle, explicite et implicite, et l'erreur determinant la volonte. Il presente des exemples de raisons pour simuler un consentement provenant des lois ou des cultures de certains pays, ainsi que les elements necessaires pour en faire la preuve. Prouvant que la simulation et l'erreur ne font pas l'unanimite en jurisprudence, il explique certaines decisions rotales portant sur l'erreur mais se rapprochant dans leurs conclusions de la simulation implicite et meme du defaut de discernement. De facon pratique, l'A. expose des elements de preuve pour les causes de simulation, specialement la simulation implicite, puis s'attarde a specifier quels sont les « elements essentiels du mariage » vises dans le c. 1101, 2.
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 | 0.017 | 0.097 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 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".