From the code civil du bas Canada (1866) to the code civil Quebecois (1991), or from the consolidation to the reform of the law: a reflection for Catalonia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The following pages explain why private law was codified in the territory which we know today as Quebec, and how and why the task of recodification was approached over one hundred years later. Quebec's experience is interesting because, on the one hand, it was successful and it is contemporary, and, on the other hand, because the political and social situation of Quebec is similar to that of Catalonia, and therefore it can serve us as a model of comparative law. Both nations have acknowledged competence in civil law matters, but neither of them has full competence (artt. 92.12 and 13 of the British North American Act, and art. 149.1.8 of the Spanish constitution (CE)). An analysis should allow one to discuss the feasibility of the codification technique, which Catalonia has also chosen recently, and debate how a modern codification should be approached. Basically, should the law that we now have and know be consolidated? Or should we break with the previous law? But before answering these questions, it may perhaps be convenient to ask ourselves about the suitability of civil codes as instruments for modernising law. In Quebec, codification was successfully handled on two separate occasions, the last in 1994. The code symbolises a different culture and society in North America, dominated for the most part by Common Law which, historically, has tended to phagocytise the droit civil .
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".