Les paradoxes de la théorie de l’acte clair en droit civil et de la parol evidence rule en common law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Une conception du langage basée sur la notion de «clarté » et tentant de faire l’économie de l’interprétation dans tout acte de communication porte en elle les germes de grandes complications juridiques. En effet, de la notion de «clarté » , émerge la théorie de l’acte clair en droit civil et celle de la parol evidence rule dans les juridictions de common law. Ces deux «théories » , bien que différentes, se heurtent tôt ou tard à des difficultés pratiques en raison du caractère fallacieux de ce critère de distinction. Alors que ces embûches sont similaires d’un système juridique à l’autre, l’attention portée à ces problèmes diffèrent grandement d’un pays à l’autre (Québec, France, Royaume-Uni et États-Unis). En fait, l’adhésion ou le rejet de ces théories s’explique avant tout par la conception personnelle du contrat et de la Justice de l’interprète.
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 | 0.014 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".