LA NOTION DE DOMMAGE DANS LE CADRE DU DÉLIT DE NÉGLIGENCE (COMMON LAW) ET DE LA RESPONSABILITÉ EXTRACONTRACTUELLE DU FAIT PERSONNEL (DROIT CIVIL) AU CANADA: UNE ÉTUDE EN DROIT COMPARÉ (The Notion of Injury in the Tort of Negligence (Common Law) and the Personal Extracontractual Liability (Civil Law) in Canada: A Comparative Study)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The English version of this paper can be found at http://ssrn.com/abstract=3373986. French Abstract: L’objet de la presente analyse est de faire etat des principes qui regissent la notion de prejudice en matiere de responsabilite extracontractuelle du fait personnel en droit civil quebecois et du delit de negligence en common law au Canada. L’auteure cherche a identifier les similitudes et les differences qui regissent cette notion et a formuler des suggestions sur le statu quo legal. Meme si la convergence des regles applicables dans ce domaine n’est presente qu’en partie, les preoccupations legales restent largement similaires. Des conclusions judiciaires sont tantot similaires, tantot divergentes. L’etude comparee du prejudice dans les deux cultures juridiques canadiennes s’avere tout un domaine a decouvrir! English Abstract: This study aims to set out the principles governing the concept of injury in the context of extracontractual liability resulting from one’s personal acts under Quebec civil law and the common law tort of negligence in Canada. The author seeks to identify similarities and differences that govern this concept and to put forth suggestions on the legal status quo. While the applicable rules in this area only partially converge, the legal concerns remain by and large similar. Court findings are alike in some instances but differ in others. The comparative study of injury within the two legal cultures in Canada proves to be quite a field to discover!
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".