LA REFONTE DU CODE CIVIL ROUMAIN ET LE CODE CIVIL DU QUEBEC
Bibliographic record
Abstract
No other Eastern European country preserved its modern civil code during the socialist era; Romania is the one exception. Greatly inspired by the Napoleonic Code, Romania’s civil code came into force on December 1, 1865. The only major changes it underwent between 1945 and 1989 concerned individuals and extinctive prescription. Its first book (“Of Persons”) was repealed in 1954 and replaced with a Family Code, receded by a special statute dedicated to physical persons and legal entities (Decrees Nos. 31 and 32 of 1954). Then in 1958, a new, modern regime of extinctive prescription was promulgated (Decree No. 167). Attempts at reform, like those of 1939 and 1971, were successively abandoned. After the 1989 revolutionary movement, the revision of civil legislation was considered one of the most important economic and social reforms. The revision of the existing civil code or the drafting of a new code was envisaged as the central problem of such a reform. This analysis illustrates the background against which the new Romanian civil code was drafted: the methodological debates, the practical organization of the work and the political problems, in an attempt to draw some general conclusions as to the final result.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.001 |
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.
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".