MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3183412938 · doi:10.7202/rqdi.v33i1.688

LE JUGE QUÉBÉCOIS FACE AU DIVORCE ISLAMIQUE COMMENT PRÉVENIR LES DIVORCES «BOITEUX» INTERNATIONAUX? Comment prévenir les divorces « boiteux » internationaux ?

2020· article· fr· W3183412938 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Harith Al-Dabbagh

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue québécoise de droit international · 2020
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticulturalism, Politics, Migration, Gender
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceLawAmbivalenceEnforcementSociologyLaw and economicsPsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The presence in Canada of a large population from Muslim countries has given rise to new litigation relating to religion-based family institutions. The courts are increasingly called upon to give effect to divorce decisions made under Muslim laws. Despite liberalism characterizing the regime for the recognition and enforcement of foreign decisions, Quebec jurisprudence is prima faciequite resistant to the reception of Islamic divorces. This contribution aims to determine the different variables that influence the effectiveness of these judgments inthe Quebec legal space. The analysis highlights the ambivalence of the case law which reflects the tension between two imperatives: that of preserving the cohesion and the values of the forum's legal order, on the one hand, and that of promoting international harmony between solutions, on the other hand.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.188

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0170.007
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue québécoise de droit internationalSame topicMulticulturalism, Politics, Migration, GenderFrench-language works237,207