MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3201260708 · doi:10.31178/aubd.2021.01

Buna-credință în legislația din Quebec

2021· article· en· W3201260708 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueAnalele Universitării din București Drept · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean and International Contract Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDoctrineCivil codeGood faithLawFaithState (computer science)Political scienceCode (set theory)Common lawCivil law (Civil law)SociologyCommercial lawPhilosophyTheologySet (abstract data type)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the Quebec-Romania bilateral days held as part of the celebrations of the 160th anniversary of the Faculty of Law of the University of Bucharest, the speakers were invited to present the state of the law in their respective jurisdictions based on the common French root. Good faith was codified in the French Civil Code in art. 1134 C.N., a codification that was not repeated until 1994 in Quebec. Despite this lack of codification, the courts, influenced by French doctrine, began to recognize the importance and the various components of the concept of good faith in contract as of the 1980s. This text explains the developments of good faith in Quebec law, as well as the limits to it.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.927
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnalele Universitării din București DreptSame topicEuropean and International Contract LawFrench-language works237,207