Le droit civil québécois : exemple d’un droit à porosité variable (Quebec Civil Law: A Law with Variable Porosity)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: Des le 19e siecle, la protection du droit civil quebecois contre l’infiltration du droit anglais est une preoccupation largement repandue au sein de la communaute juridique. Une forme de resistance se developpe a l’egard des emprunts a la common law pour interpreter ou completer le droit civil. Aujourd’hui, la crainte d’une contamination du droit civil quebecois par la common law est moins presente, mais fait place a une reticence des tribunaux a reconnaitre la primaute et l’autonomie des lois de protection des droits de la personne par rapport au droit commun. Les chartes des droits sont parfois percues comme une menace pour l’originalite du droit civil, sa coherence et l’hegemonie du Code civil du Quebec. La transformation du droit civil quebecois dans le sens d’une plus grande protection des droits de la personne est neanmoins bien entamee. Apres avoir rappele les caracteristiques du Code civil qui en font une loi « poreuse » et donc receptive a l’influence d’autres systemes, regles ou concepts de droit, l’auteure etudie plus specifiquement dans quelle mesure le Code civil est receptif a l’influence des droits de la personne. L’analyse de ses rapports avec la Charte quebecoise montre que cette receptivite est a niveau variable. English Abstract: As early as the 19th century, the protection of Quebec civil law against the infiltration of English law was a widespread concern in the legal community. A form of resistance developed with respect to borrowing from common law to interpret or supplement the civil law. Today, the fear of the contamination of civil law in Quebec by common law is less present, but gives way to a reluctance from the courts to recognize the rule of law and the autonomy of laws protecting human rights regarding common law. Charters of rights are sometimes perceived as a threat to the originality of civil law, its coherence and the hegemony of the Civil Code of Quebec. The transformation of Quebec civil law towards a greater protection of human rights is nevertheless well under way. After recalling the characteristics that make the Civil Code a “porous” law and therefore receptive to the influence of other systems, rules, or law concepts, the author studies more specifically to what extent the Civil Code is receptive to the influence of human rights. The analysis of its relations with the Quebec Charter shows that this receptivity is at a variable level.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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.
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".