Le Manquement À La Norme De Diligence Et La Faute Dans Le Cadre Du Délit De Négligence (Common Law) Et De La Responsabilité Extracontractuelle Du Fait Personnel (Droit Civil) AU Canada: Une Étude Comparée (Breach of Standard of Care and Fault in the Common Law Tort of Negligence and Its Quebec Civil Law Equivalent, Fault of Extra Contractual Liability for Personal Acts: A Canadian Comparative Study)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The English version of this paper can be found at http://ssrn.com/abstract=3310639. French Abstract: Resume : L’objet de la presente etude est de presenter les principes qui regissent (le manquement a) la norme de diligence (delit de negligence- common law) et la faute (responsabilite extracontractuelle personnelle - droit civil -article 1457 CcQ). Plus precisement, elle se concentre sur la personne raisonnable et son comportement dans les deux traditions juridiques du Canada. L’auteur essaie de determiner le degre de convergence des regles applicables dans ce domaine. A travers une recherche des sources de droit en common law et en droit civil on decouvre une convergence remarquable de ces regles mais aussi des divergences. English Abstract: The object of the present study is to describe the principles governing the (breach of the) standard of care (tort of negligence – common law) and the fault (extra-contractual liability – liability for personal acts - civil law – article 1457 CcQ). More specifically, the study focuses on the reasonable person and his conduct in the two legal traditions of Canada. The author tries to determine the degree of convergence of the applicable rules in this area. The research of civil law and common law sources of law unveils a remarkable convergence of these rules as well as differences.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".