MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2917129566 · doi:10.7202/1043674ar

REVUE DE LA JURISPRUDENCE 2013 EN FISCALITÉ ET EN FIDUCIE

2014· article· fr· W2917129566 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Diane Bruneau

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue du notariat · 2014
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHuman Rights and Immigration
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Labour, Employment and Social Solidarity
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

pas bon ménage ! . . . . .2.3 Fiducie discrétionnaire et prestations d'aide sociale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.4 Fiducie entre vifs et saisies . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.5 Fiducie testamentaire réglée après 47 ans... . . . . .2.6 Fiducie testamentaire et exploitation d'une entreprise familiale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.7 Fiducie testamentaire exclusive au conjoint et devoir de subvenir à ses besoins . . . . . . . . .2.8 Poursuite contre les fiduciaires pour leur gestion : attention aux frais ! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
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: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.364
Threshold uncertainty score0.724

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0190.024
Scholarly communication0.0240.008
Open science0.0040.008
Research integrity0.0270.033
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.272 · 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
GenreReview

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
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueRevue du notariatSame topicHuman Rights and ImmigrationFrench-language works237,207