MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2966264975

LA COUR SUPREME ET LA REFORME DU CODE CIVIL

2000· article· fr· W2966264975 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Pierre-Gabriel Jobin

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Bar Review · 2000
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal and Social Philosophy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawSupreme courtCivil law (Civil law)Political scienceComparative lawPrecedentJurisprudenceCommon lawPublic law
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Supreme Court's influence on the law of the Civil Code ofLower Canada was so determining that it demonstrates that jurisprudence can be a true source of law. In the reform of the Civil Code, not all holdings of the Court were followed by the legislature, but the majority, and the most significant ones were codified. The dark era of the systematic «uniformisation» of Quebec law with the common law is over, nowadays the Court's approach to the civil law is enriched by well-conceived and respectful comparative law. This is yet another reason to regret that so few civil law decisions are handed down by the Court.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.552

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0090.017
Scholarly communication0.0100.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.270 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Bar ReviewSame topicLegal and Social PhilosophyFrench-language works237,207