L’Enrichissement Injustifié, L’Union De Fait Et L’Emprunt À La Common Law Dans Le Droit Mixte du Québec (Unjust Enrichment, Cohabitation, and Borrowing from the Common Law in the Mixed Jurisdiction of Quebec)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: Ce texte examine la receptivite du systeme de droit mixte quebecois a l’emprunt a la common law et le pouvoir des tribunaux de premiere instance de faire evoluer le droit. Il etudie le cas de l’enrichissement injustifie en matiere d’union de fait. Invites a s’inspirer de l’affaire de common law Kerr c. Baranow rendue par la Cour supreme du Canada, les juges en soulignent les origines etrangeres, ils prennent acte du fait que la Cour d’appel en a declare les principes applicables et ils se taisent parfois sur leur provenance. La notion de la completude du droit civil, selon laquelle il n’y a pas lieu de referer aux sources de common law, ne s’est pas entierement imposee. Toutefois, les traces de l’origine etrangere de l’emprunt s’estompent rapidement. Ce processus d’integration de l’emprunt donne l’apparence d’un evenement ponctuel, plutot que d’un processus d’echange constant entre le droit civil et d’autres traditions. English Abstract: How open is the mixed jurisdiction of Quebec towards ideas from the common law and what is trial judges’ scope for developing the law? Unjust enrichment in the cohabitation context serves as a case study. Encountering the approach in the Supreme Court of Canada’s common-law judgment Kerr v. Baranow, judges emphasize its foreignness, they take note when the Court of Appeal declares it applicable, and sometimes they make no mention of its source. The idea of the civil law’s completeness or autonomy – by which reference to the common law has no place – has not wholly prevailed. Nevertheless, signs of the transplant’s origins fade quickly. This process of integration looks like a one-off event, rather than an ongoing exchange between legal traditions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".