Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le texte explore l’état du droit civil et de la common law au Canada en matière de droit des obligations, en s’attardant spécifiquement à deux situations distinctes, la première étant celle où l’intention des parties contractantes est d’être régies exclusivement par leurs clauses contractuelles, la seconde se présentant lorsque le contrat est régi par une loi non étatique tel un usage, un principe général du droit ou encore la lex mercatoria. Dans les deux cas, la question demeure entière de savoir si ces contrats sont néanmoins soumis à une loi étatique, et si oui, laquelle ? Les réponses sont-elles différentes selon que le contrat est soumis à l’arbitrage ? Et si tel est le cas, ces différences sont-elles justifiées ? La Convention interaméricaine sur la loi applicable aux contrats internationaux (1994) ainsi que la révision actuelle de la Convention de Rome sur la loi applicable aux obligations contractuelles (1980), auxquelles le Canada n’est pas Partie, apportent un certain éclairage à ce sujet.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".