MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2252325734

Источники права британской колонии Квебек в последней трети XVIII века: проблемы выбора

2015· article· ru· W2252325734 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Кокотов Сергей Александрович

Bibliographic record

VenueСервис в России и за рубежом · 2015
Typearticle
Languageru
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticultural Socio-Legal Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawCivil law (Civil law)Possession (linguistics)Legal historyCriminal lawEnglish lawPolitical scienceColonialismComparative lawCommon lawPrivate lawPopulationPublic lawSociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A distinctive feature of modern Canada is the dualism of its legal system. This means that in the country there are two systems of law continental (Roman-German) and Anglo-Saxon (precedent). Each of these systems differ in their approaches to the understanding of law and justice implementation. However, the main difference is due to the fact that each of these systems relies on its own sources of law. If the basis of the criminal and private law in general, and the federation of nine provinces in particular is common (case) law of England, in the province of Quebec are used English (basically) criminal law and French civil law in its origin. Historically, this was due to the fact that at the time of the conquest of the colony of New France (now Quebec) in the XVIII century it had a relatively developed legal system, including the system of administration of justice. At the heart of the local sources of law were kutyums of Paris, supplementing ordinances of the French kings. Inclusion of New France in the possession of the English Crown was for the new authorities a precedent the first time in the history of the British colonial empire it acquired a part of the territory with a Christian population and European law. In fact, the British colonial authorities had to make a choice, which was to determine the vector of further legal development of not only the newly conquered colony, but the whole of British North America. According to the rules of English case law the medieval English monarch (as sovereign) could either admit the law to of its new ownershipin force at the time of the conquest, or introduce there English law in force at the time. In view of the prevailing circumstances of the specific historical issue of the replacement of French law (including sources and the administration of justice) in English it turned out to be extremely difficult from the socio-political and a formal legal point of view. This article analyzes the problems encountered during the initial stage of the legal system of the British colony of Quebec and, in particular, of the sources of its territorial law.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.944
Threshold uncertainty score0.110

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.008

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.

Opus teacher head0.087
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueСервис в России и за рубежомSame topicMulticultural Socio-Legal StudiesFrench-language works237,207