MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2562834210 · doi:10.71781/8994

La noblesse montréalaise devant les tribunaux (1750-1793)

2016· dissertation· fr· W2562834210 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marie Zissis

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2016
Typedissertation
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Entre la fin du régime français et l’adoption de l’Acte constitutionnel par le Parlement de Londres en 1791, le rapport que la noblesse canadienne entretient avec le système judiciaire civil de la colonie change de façon majeure. Les Canadiens doivent s’adapter au nouveau système mis en place par l’administration britannique de la colonie. En Nouvelle-France, les nobles présentaient leurs différends juridiques civils devant le Tribunal royal, régi par la Coutume de Paris ; à partir de la Cession (1763), ce sont officiellement les lois britanniques qui s’appliquent jusqu’au retour des lois civiles françaises en 1774. Après quelques adaptations, la Cour des Plaidoyers communs devient la cour de prédilection des Canadiens, et par conséquent, de l’ancienne élite militaire. Le système judiciaire constitue un élément important de l’étude de l’évolution de la colonie, car l’attitude de la caste élitaire face aux tribunaux est un indicateur de sa capacité d’adaptation et de son degré d’implication dans la vie sociale.

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)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.443

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0160.007
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.271 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MIND→Same topicCanadian Identity and History→French-language works237,207→