The administrative contracts: A comparison between Mexico & Canada (emphasis in Quebec’s regime)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
espanolEl objeto de este trabajo es realizar un ejercicio microcomparatista de la institucion juridica de los contratos administrativos, entre el regimen mexicano y el canadiense. Ambos sistemas juridicos corresponden a tradiciones completamente diferentes. Mientras que la contratacion administrativa en Canada se considera parte de su common law, a pesar de la fuerte influencia del civil law –debida al sistema bijural rector por la Provincia de Quebec–, en el derecho mexicano se sigue la tradicion civilista y la doctrina clasica francesa de los contratos administrativos. Sin embargo, en ambos casos existe una fuerte influencia de una tradicion diferente. El objetivo del articulo es encontrar las similitudes y las diferencias en lo que en un principio seria una institucion de comportamientos completamente distintos y que, sin embargo, persiguen los mismos objetivos y procuran evitar practicas similares. English This article pretends to be a micro comparative exercise among the legal institution of administrative contracts, between the Mexican and Canadian legal regimes. Both legal systems correspond to completely different legal traditions. While the administrative contracts in Canada are considered part of their common law, notwithstanding the strong civil law influence, due to bijural system that rules in the Province of Quebec; in Mexican law, it follows the civilist tradition and the classic French doctrine of the administrative contracts. Nevertheless, in both cases, exists a strong influence of the different tradition. So, the objective of this article is to find the similitudes and differences in what could be seen as a complete different way of behavior of the same institution, but, searches for the same objectives and procures avoid similar practices
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".