L’encadrement des procurations accordées par les personnes aînées au Québec:: une appréciation critique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
EnglishSeniors in a position of vulnerability often give a close family member, usually someone with no experience, a power of attorney to help them manage their affairs. In Quebec, powers of attorney are governed by the rules in the Civil Code of Quebec dealing with mandates and the administration of the property of others. This research focuses on the decisions rendered by the lower courts in civil cases over a period of 15 years, highlighting the inability of the current legislation to prevent mismanagement by mandataries given power over the property of the elderly. For comparison purposes, the study then examines proposals made in the United States for a legislative framework that will respond more effectively to vulnerable seniors’ need for protection, in the specific areas covered by our research. francaisLes personnes ainees qui se trouvent dans une situation de vulnerabilite donnent souvent une procuration a un proche, habituellement un gestionnaire neophyte, pour obtenir une assistance dans la gestion de leurs affaires. Au Quebec, les procurations sont regies par les regles du Code civil du Quebec relatives au mandat et a l’administration du bien d’autrui. Dans cette recherche, nous analysons les decisions des tribunaux de droit commun rendues en matiere civile sur une periode de 15 ans, afin de mettre en relief l’inadequation de ce corpus legislatif comme instrument de prevention des manquements de la part des mandataires appeles a gerer le patrimoine d’une personne ainee. En guise de comparaison, notre etude rend compte des efforts deployes aux Etats-Unis pour proposer un cadre legislatif en vue de mieux repondre aux besoins de protection des personnes ainees vulnerables dans le contexte specifique de notre recherche.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".