MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2266694311 · doi:10.3406/ridc.2015.20474

Entre trust et fiducie, le malentendu québécois

2015· article· en· W2266694311 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Frédéric Zenati-Castaing

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue internationale de droit comparé · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal and Social Philosophy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDenialOrder (exchange)LawCivil codeCivil law (Civil law)Political scienceExpress trustTrust lawCode (set theory)SociologyLaw and economicsBusinessPsychologyCommercial lawComputer sciencePsychoanalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Quebec’s fiducie comes straightforward from the common law trust. The drafters of the Quebec civil code have been very eager to erase this. In order to achieve their goal, they have borrowed to Lepaulle, French expert of the trust, his theoretical framework, which was meant to comply with civil law thinking : the ownerless patrimony. This was not the best way to make up a civilian device, because ownerless patrimony is not actually a romanist concept, but rather the denial of civilian legal science. Either, dismissing the trust was not legally overwhelming, because the common law trust is not as far as it seems from the roman concepts and even from the civil concepts.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.421

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0120.021
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue internationale de droit comparéSame topicLegal and Social PhilosophyFrench-language works237,207