Bibliographic record
Abstract
La théorie générale du contrat repose sur l’idée romantique de la rencontre de deux volontés venant à fusionner. L’étude du contrat d’assurance démontre toutefois un changement de paradigme allant de la fusion contractuelle à celui de la solitude contractuelle où la rencontre des volontés des contractants ne se produit jamais réellement. Cette solitude s’illustre de différentes manières lorsque la Proposition a préséance sur la Police ou inversement lorsque la seconde surlasse la première. De même, plusieurs solutions dégagées par les tribunaux ne trouvent pas de fondement dans la Proposition ni dans la Police, ce qui laisse ainsi croire que le « contrat » d’assurance réside dans un ailleurs qui n’est pas celui de l’intention commune des contractants. Ultimement, le tiraillement entre la Proposition et la Police pose la question de la véritable nature de l’assurance : est-ce encore un contrat ?
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".