Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction . In the paper the author analyzes the principles of contractual performance under the Quebec law, including their codification in both the Civil Code of Lower Canada and the Civil Code of Quebec. Additionally, the author carries out an analysis regarding relevant judicial precedents. Materials and methods . The sources for the research consist of the Civil Code of Lower Canada (1865), the Civil Code of Quebec (1991), the judicial precedents of the courts of Quebec and those of the Supreme Court of Canada, as well as scientific papers of foreign researchers specializing in civil law. The methodology used for the research comprises general scientific (analysis, synthesis and analogy) as well as specific legal methods such as comparative legal, formal logical, systematic, structural and functional methods, as well as interpretative analysis. Research results . The author conducts an analysis of the codification of the Quebec civil legislation as well as the principle of proper performance of contractual obligations, its correlation with the specific performance, and the principle of good faith contractual performance. Overview and conclusion . The definition of two principles of the performance of contractual obligations (proper and good faith performance) under the Quebec law is justified. Due to certain exceptions and conditions for its practical implementation, the specific performance cannot be deemed as a principle, albeit its relative prevalence among the decisions rendered by the courts of Quebec.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it