MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2980675441

Les motifs en droit des contratsétude des droits québécois, français et camerounais: étude des droits québécois, français et camerounais

2019· article· fr· W2980675441 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Voudwé Bakréo

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue de droit international et de droit comparé · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Identity, and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesLaw and economicsSociologyLawPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

EnglishThe debate on the place of in contract law is one of the most sensitive questions currently stirring the subject matter, whether in French, Quebec or Cameroonian law. This is so because the question is as actual as the theme motivation in contract law ''. And it gives rise to two other themes which are also problematic. On the one hand unilateralism, with its bulk of individual prerogatives, unshared and badly seen powers. On the other hand solidarism, with its postulate of inequality between the parties and the desire to restore the primacy of civility. Therefore, this article is aimed at answering the question of whether contract law takes into account the motivations of the parties. To do so, it refers, on the one hand, to the indifference of the general rules applicable to contract, and, on the other hand, to their receipt in special contracts, where they seem to play a very vital role. francaisLe debat sur la place des motifs en droit des contrats estt l 'une des interrogations les plus delicates qui agitent actuellement la matiere, que ce soit aussi bien en droit francais, quebecois que camerounais. II en est ainsi parce que la question est d'autant plus actuelle que le theme « motifs en droit des contrats » se recommande de deux autres, non moins problematiques. D 'un cote, l 'unilateralisme, avec son lot de prerogatives individuelles, de pouvoirs non partages et mal vecus. D 'un autre, le solidarisme, avec son postulat d 'une inegalite entre les parties et le souhait correlatif de restaurer la primaute d'une civilite. Partant, cet article se propose de repondre a la question de savoir si le droit des contrats prend en consideration les motivations des parties. Pour ce faire, il fait etat, d 'une part, de l 'indifference du droit commun a l 'egard des motift et, d'autre part, de leur reception dans les contrats speciaux, ou ils semblent jouer un role tres determinant.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.958
Threshold uncertainty score0.266

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0070.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue de droit international et de droit comparéSame topicMigration, Identity, and HealthFrench-language works237,207