Quand comparaison juridique n’est pas raison politique. Les juristes britanniques et canadiens-français comme analystes des systèmes de common law et de droit civil en amont de l’Acte de Québec (1774)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La conquête du Canada par les Britanniques en 1759-1763 ouvre une période d’intenses mutations et d’une certaine fébrilité sur le plan juridique et institutionnel. En l’espace de quinze ans, plusieurs orientations sont prises, obligeant à une évaluation comparatiste des droits français et anglais pour bâtir le futur juridique de la nouvelle colonie britannique. Jusqu’à l’Acte de Québec, les juristes d’origine britannique et française vont analyser, comparer les mérites de ces deux modèles juridiques, se critiquer largement, jusqu’à trouver une solution de compromis, permettant à la fois une adaptation du droit, mais aussi une appropriation identitaire caractéristique de la démarche juridique colonial, identifiant un véritable Legal transplant.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 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".