CANADIAN CONTRACT AND TORT LAW: THE CONCEPT OF FORCE MAJEURE IN QUEBEC AND ITS COMMON LAW EQUIVALENT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
English Abstract: The present article constitutes a comparative legal study of Canadian tort and contract law concepts. It comments on the concept of force majeure contained in article 1470 of the Quebec civil code and seeks to identify its Canadian common law equivalent in the fields of contract and tort law. Common law terms examined in this regard are the frustration doctrine, and the act of God and inevitable accident defenses. The intent of the author is to discover the main differences and similarities between the examined concepts.French Abstract: Cet article constitue une etude de droit compare de certains concepts qui sous-tendent le droit de la responsabilite civile extracontractuelle et contractuelle au Canada. Le texte analyse la notion de force majeure que l’on retrouve a l'article 1470 du Code civil du Quebec et tente d’identifier, en common law, les theories equivalentes. Les concepts etudies en common law touchant ce moyen de defense sont : l’impossibilite d’agir, les faits de la nature et l’accident inevitable. L’auteur tente de decouvrir les differences et les similitudes principales entre ces diverses notions.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".