Regards sur les systèmes de partage des biens en droit matrimonial québécois et ontarien
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Issus d’une philosophie du mariage fondée sur l’idée de mise en commun de ressources, les principes-directeurs gouvernant le partage des biens des conjoints à l’occasion d’une dissolution de mariage sont identiques au Québec et en Ontario. Aussi est-il étonnant de constater que les résultats ultimes soient si différents. Il faut cependant comprendre que l’application de règles complémentaires tend à faire emprunter à chacune des législations des voies qui n’ont rien en commun. La rigueur des opérations de partage au Québec offre un contraste marquant avec la subjectivité et l’équité soulevées par les tribunaux ontariens. Mais la simplicité des procédés n’a pas que des avantages, et certains ont reproché à la société d’acquêts cette cécité dans l’application de ses principes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".