MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2951336934

RECONNAISSANCE ET EXÉCUTION AU CANADA (QUÉBEC) DU NOUVEAU DIVORCE FRANÇAIS SANS JUGE

2019· article· fr· W2951336934 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jeffrey Talpis

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Bar Review · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Identity, and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceLawContext (archaeology)Order (exchange)SociologyHistoryBusiness
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this text, Professor Jeffrey Talpis discusses the new French law allowing divorce without a judge, adopted January 1st, 2017, which provides that where the parties have agreed to divorce and to all collateral matters, and where the agreement is filed with a French notary, the marriage is dissolved. Following a brief overview of the new law, the author focuses on its cross-border application in various foreign jurisdictions, particularly in Canada, in the Province of Quebec. According to Professor Talpis, the French divorce sans judge would not be recognized under the jurisdictional approach in Canada or Quebec. Nonetheless, as the author explains, in certain circumstances it could be recognized in Quebec under the conflictual approach. The author concludes by recommending that the current law be reformed in order to reduce uncertainty and prevent flawed marriages and divorces in an international context.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.506

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0080.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.251 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Bar ReviewSame topicMigration, Identity, and HealthFrench-language works237,207