Bibliographic record
Abstract
The question of exceptions that the surety may set up against the creditor is based, currently under French Law, on the distinction between those which are inherent to the debt and those which are purely personal to the principal debtor (Art. 2012 and 2036 French Civil Code of 1804, similar to Art. 1932 and 1958 Civil Code of Lower Canada, Art. 3036 and Art. 3060 Louisiana Civil Code of 1870). This distinction is based on an incidental presentation of Roman Law rules by Pothier (1699-1772) and has resulted currently in many controversies. Notably, a criticized decision of the Cour de cassation decided that fraud is a purely personal exception. The French preliminary project of reform of law of securities intends to resolve the issue by stating that both sorts of exceptions may be set up and by specifying some exceptions. However, the proposed provisions do not clarify the matter and give rise to some difficulties. To resolve the matter, the central place of natural obligations and the civil validity of its suretyship must be asserted. In addition, one should take into account that the Civil Code only mentions the existence of two categories without further detail. Therefore, on the basis of the accessory nature of the suretyship, the distinction should be removed from the law while being kept as legal doctrine and the provisions of the Civil Code should be adapted.
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 | 0.017 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.027 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".