Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les contrats intelligents sont des programmes informatiques qui s’exécutent d’eux-mêmes dès lors que certaines conditions, déterminées au préalable par les parties, sont remplies. Ce type de contrat est récemment entré dans une nouvelle ère suite à la démocratisation des cryptomonnaies, notamment le Bitcoin et sa technologie sous-jacente ; la chaîne de blocs. Celle-ci se définit comme un registre virtuel répertoriant des historiques de transactions, permettant entre autres de réaliser des transferts d’actifs de pair à pair, sans intermédiaire. Désormais, la chaîne de blocs est aussi capable de servir de support au contrat intelligent, ce qui soulève de nouvelles problématiques juridiques. En raison de sa nature, il est possible que le contrat intelligent puisse causer un préjudice en cas de mauvaise ou de non-exécution. Le présent mémoire consiste à déterminer l’applicabilité du régime de responsabilité civile à ce type de contrat, au regard des dispositions du Code civil du Québec et de la Loi concernant le cadre juridique des technologies de l’information.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".