MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793158076 · doi:10.7202/1043449ar

LA PORTÉE DE L’ARTICLE 1275 DU CODE CIVIL DU QUÉBEC À L’ÉGARD DU FIDUCIAIRE

2016· article· fr· W2793158076 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Julien BUSQUE

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue du notariat · 2016
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ce texte est tiré d'un mémoire de maîtrise réalisé à l'Université Laval sous la direction du professeur François Brochu.Il a remporté, à l'automne 2016, le concours de rédaction juridique de la Chaire du notariat de l'Université de Montréal.L'auteur tient à remercier la Chambre des notaires pour la bourse d'études supérieures qui lui a été octroyée.La recherche est à jour au 30 juin 2016.** LL.M., notaire et planificateur financier, Trust Banque Nationale.Les opinions exprimées dans ce mémoire sont propres à l'auteur et n'engagent aucunement Trust Banque Nationale inc.2.3 Le droit civil québécois comparé au droit civil français . . . . . . . . . . .

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.389

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0120.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.004

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue du notariatSame topicLegal principles and applicationsFrench-language works237,207