Revisiting Qúebec's <I>Jus Commune</I> in the Era of the Human Rights Charters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Québec is a distinct society because of its history, its legal system, and its values. Our analysis examines the delicate issue of the relationship between the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Québec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, and the Civil Code of Québec, the primary expression of Québec's jus commune, as noted in its Preliminary Provision. As of the nineteenth century, a doctrinal trend born of the desire to protect the integrity of the civil law system grew worried about the "disruptive" influence of the common law on the civil law and, more specifically, on the Civil Code of Lower Canada. The doctrine later expressed reluctance as to the entry of fundamental rights into Québec private law. The charters of rights were, and are sometimes still, perceived as disruptive elements, capable of distorting the Civil Code. We want to show that the influence of human rights philosophy on Québec's jus commune is not only inevitable but desirable. The Civil Code and, more broadly, Québec's jus commune, can only be enriched by respect for fundamental rights.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".