Bibliographic record
Abstract
Un auteur a dit: «L'association d'idée avec la girafe se présente immédiatement à l'esprit, en donner une définition est difficile, mais chacun reconnaît l'animal». Tel est le cas pour la notion de contrat international qui apparaît souvent comme évidente, mais lorsqu'il est question de donner une définition précise la tâche s'avére complexe. L'internationalité du contrat a fait l'objet de plusieurs études et recherches dans le but de délimiter cette notion. La doctrine et la jurisprudence ont élaboré deux méthodes de qualification: économique et juridique; sans pour autant définir le contrat international de façon nette, claire et précise. Le but visé par cette étude est d'essayer d'établir le lien entre la possibilité de fraude à la loi et la problématique de la définition du contrat international; par le biais d'une étude comparative entre le droit civil (français, québécois, tunisien), la common law (Royaume-Uni, Canada, États-Unis), le droit dans les pays à commerce d'État et le droit conventionel.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".