Pour que droit et familles fassent bon ménage : étude sur la conscience du droit en matière conjugale Making Law and Families Work Together: A Study on Legal Consciousness in Conjugal Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: Alors que le mariage ne va plus de soi dans la societe quebecoise d’aujourd’hui, on constate qu’un nombre croissant de familles vivent desormais en marge du droit, ayant choisi de ne pas officialiser leur union. A l’aide de la notion de conscience du droit, nous nous interessons ici aux attentes qu’entretiennent les personnes vivant en couple par rapport au droit de la famille. Certaines montrent un rapport instrumental ou hostile aux regles juridiques, mais la plus grande partie des personnes rencontrees s’attendent a ce que le droit definisse des regles generales en vue de l’egalite et de la protection des familles. English Abstract: As marriage no longer goes without saying in contemporary Quebec society, an increasing number of families now live on the margins of the law, having chosen not to formalize their union. Using the notion of legal consciousness, we examine individuals’ expectations of family law. While some exhibit an instrumental or hostile attitude toward legal rules, most of those interview expect law to define general rules to promote equality and the protection of families.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".