Prestation Compensatoire Et Union De Fait En Droit Québécois : Étude Critique Du Discours Judiciaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper analyzes a policy recommendation suggesting the compensatory allowance, a mechanism in Quebec matrimonial law, to be the solution of the cohabitation “problem.” The study draws on queer theory to analyze the discourse found in the compensatory allowance case law. The judicial discourse is polarized into two binary categories: spouse taking advantage / spouse being taken advantage of, normal contributions / abnormal contributions. This analysis sheds light on two defining traits of the compensatory allowance. First, as elaborated by judgments, it expresses gendered, heteronormative, and traditional ideas of spousal identity and roles. Second, it is difficult to conceive of the compensatory allowance’s jurisprudence without its closely connected institutions of matrimonial law. The paper highlights the perils of establishing normalcy as a legal criterion and points to the need for further careful study of this policy recommendation.\n \nCe texte analyse une proposition de réforme qui met de l’avant la prestation compensatoire, une institution du droit matrimonial québécois, comme solution législative au « problème » de l’union de fait. L’analyse présente une critique du discours judiciaire de la prestation compensatoire dans une perspective queer. Elle propose de démontrer une polarisation du discours, sous deux axes binaires : conjoint profitant / conjointe perdante et normalité de l’apport / anormalité de l’apport. Ces binarités illustrent deux caractéristiques de la prestation compensatoire. D’abord, elle matérialise une vision genrée, hétéronormée et traditionnelle de l’identité et du rôle des conjoints. Ensuite, sa jurisprudence risque d’être difficilement applicable sans son contexte original du droit matrimonial, dans lequel elle est profondément ancrée. Le texte souligne plus largement les difficultés de l’adoption d’un critère légal de normalité et suggère la nécessité d’une étude approfondie de cette proposition de réforme.
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 | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".