MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2341851291 · doi:10.71781/2039

À la recherche d'une définition de la destination de l'immeuble en copropriété divise au Québec

2015· dissertation· fr· W2341851291 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sylvain Carrier

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2015
Typedissertation
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFrench Urban and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le droit de propriété, théoriquement absolu, est restreint dans le cadre de la copropriété divise étant donné le contexte individuel et collectif dans lequel il s’exerce. En fait, l’intérêt collectif peut lui imposer des restrictions, mais à certaines conditions. L’une d’entre elles, essentielle, est le respect de la destination de l’immeuble. Or, la notion de destination de l'immeuble ne fait l'objet d'aucune disposition législative permettant de la définir. Afin de préciser cette notion, deux conceptions ont été développées. La première est à l’effet qu’on doit tenir compte, dans la recherche de la destination de l'immeuble, de ses caractères et de sa situation. La deuxième prévoit plutôt qu'il faut distinguer ces trois éléments. Même si la première thèse est majoritairement admise en jurisprudence, nous croyons que les tribunaux interprètent trop largement cette notion, qui devrait être mieux circonscrite. Après une revue de la littérature et une analyse jurisprudentielle, nous développerons notre propre conception de la notion de destination, qui sera une voie mitoyenne entre les deux conceptions établies, et proposerons des améliorations quant à la rédaction de cette clause dans la déclaration de copropriété.

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)0.002
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.290

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0080.007
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.321
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.131 · 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
GenreOther

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 venueOpen MIND→Same topicFrench Urban and Social Studies→French-language works237,207→