CARTOGRAPHIE DE LA MIXITE : LA COMMON LAW ET LA COMPLETUDE DU DROIT CIVIL AU QUEBEC
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the early 1990s, the legal community was wondering how the new Civil Code would affect the interaction of Quebec’s civil law system with the world around it. Fifteen years ago, when the Civil Code came into force, two diverging trends were foreseeable. First, codification’s systemic effect might have encouraged a process of “nationalization and local systematization”, or even “an accelerated shrinking of sources”. In that event, the new Civil Code would become both the alpha and the omega of private law reasoning. It would reinforce the idea of the closed nature of Quebec civil law and would prevent outside law from intruding (unduly). But the opposite trend was just as conceivable: the framing of a contemporary code, built from eclectic sources, would be expressed by a newly confident and mature legal system in Quebec, and would open the door to interpretive practices that were more curious and less static. At first view, the practice of looking to outside sources for the legal interpretation of the Civil Code suggests that there was neither a closure of the borders nor a comparatist explosion in Quebec – the opening H. Patrick Glenn had hoped for never came to pass.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".