(R)évolution en matière de libéralités : L’exemple de la liberté testamentaire au Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"In Canada, Quebec is the only province to have a legal system under which civil matters are regulated by a Civil Code and not by common law. Nonetheless, Quebeckers had unlimited “freedom of willing” until 1989. Henceforth, although Quebeckers remain free to determine via their last wills and testaments to whom they wish to bequeath their property, their margin of freedom is limited by legislative measures governing the survival of the obligation to provide support after death and the partitioning of the family patrimony. Such limitations on the freedom to bequeath are based upon a family interpretation of public order whereby the deceased must share the value of given property with his or her spouse and look after the immediate family’s need for support. Despite this, the Civil Code makes still no provision, as in French law, for an “undisposable estate” (réserves héréditaires) and it is fitting to question the reasons motivating this decision. The author attempts to identify the social context in which freedom to bequeath came to be limited. As such, she seeks to make known the material sources underpinning the adoption of the Bill that introduced the primary limitations on freedom to bequeath. Her study shows that within the framework of discussions on relevancy to limit this freedom, the issue being debated shifted its objective. Participants widened the initial debate then focused on the transmission of the patrimony by redefining it to encompass the questions of sharing family assets. This transformation contributes to explain how the law of successions in Quebec has drawn closer to family law."
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".