Le juge québécois face au divorce islamique. Comment prévenir les divorces « boiteux » internationaux?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La présence sur le territoire du Canada d’une importante population originaire des pays musulmans a suscité un contentieux nouveau portant sur des institutions familiales de facture religieuse. Les tribunaux sont de plus en plus sollicités pour donner effet à des décisions de divorce rendues en vertu des lois d’inspiration musulmane. Malgré le libéralisme caractérisant le régime de reconnaissance et d’exécution des décisions étrangères, la jurisprudence québécoise se montre de prima facie assez réfractaire à la réception des divorces islamiques. La présente contribution ambitionne de déterminer les différentes variables qui influencent l’efficacité de ces jugements dans l’espace juridique québécois. L’analyse met en lumière l’ambivalence de la jurisprudence qui traduit le tiraillement entre deux impératifs : celui de préserver la cohésion et les valeurs de l’ordre juridique du for d’une part et celui de favoriser l’harmonie internationale des solutions d’autre part.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".