De la protection du propriétaire à la gestion du risque commercial : l’évolution du contrat à forfait en droit québécois From Owner Protection to Commercial Risk Management: The Evolution of the Fixed Price Contract in Quebec Law)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: Malgre la volonte affirmee du legislateur de reprendre dans le Code civil du Quebec le droit anterieur relatif au contrat a forfait, la formulation de l’article 2109 CcQ differe sur plusieurs points de celle de son predecesseur, l’article 1690 CcBC. On peut donc se demander dans quelle mesure l’adoption du Code civil du Quebec a entraine ou signale une modification du droit quebecois en matiere de contrats a forfait. Dans le present article, nous comparerons les diverses interpretations des articles 1690 CcBC et 2109 CcQ et mettrons en lumiere certaines incertitudes qui persistent relativement aux effets de ce dernier. Enfin, nous tenterons de mieux comprendre ces incertitudes a la lumiere de la maniere dont le concept de contrat d’entreprise a evolue au cours du 20e siecle. English Abstract: Although officially conceived as a restatement of existing law, section 2109 CCQ relating to fixed price contracts of enterprise differs in many respects from its prede- cessor (s. 1690 CCLC). We can therefore ask to what extent the adoption of the Quebec Civil Code resulted in, or signalled, a modification of Quebec law on fixed price contracts. In this article, the various interpretations of sections 1690 CCLC and 2109 CCQ are compared, and some of the uncertainties that persist in relation to the interpretation of section 2109 CCQ are underlined. Attempts are then made to account for these uncertainties in light of how the evolution of the concept of contract of enterprise in the course of the 20th century.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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 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".