La Spécificité Patrimoniale De L’Union De Fait : Le Libre Choix Et Ses « Dommages Collatéraux » (The Patrimonial Specificity of the De Facto Union: Free Choice and 'Collateral Damage')
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: Le droit quebecois a traditionnellement voulu preserver le libre choix des personnes en s’abstenant d’imposer aux conjoints de fait les droits et obligations des epoux maries. Jusqu’a tres recemment, il etait possible de croire que la situation allait changer sous l’impulsion d’un mouvement doctrinal et jurisprudentiel pronant, au nom de la protection du conjoint economiquement defavorise et de la non-discrimination, l’assimilation des conjoints de fait aux epoux maries ou unis civilement quant aux effets patrimoniaux de leur union. Cependant, dans l’affaire Walsh, la Cour supreme du Canada consacre un revirement majeur de la jurisprudence en confirmant la validite, au regard de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertes, de l’exclusion des conjoints de fait d’un regime legislatif de partage automatique des biens familiaux. Les auteurs estiment que l’approche resolument autonomiste de la Cour supreme manque de nuance et ils invitent a poursuivre le debat social sur l’opportunite de prevoir un cadre juridique protectionnel contraignant pour les conjoints de fait. Sans evacuer toute idee de respect de l’autonomie individuelle, ils avancent qu’on ne peut occulter le probleme de la precarite financiere des familles monoparentales dans un contexte d’augmentation des ruptures familiales. Or la charge d’enfants constitue un des facteurs determinants de precarite economique postseparation. L’objectif de protection est donc pressant dans ces cas et sa realisation passe, selon les auteurs, par l’application aux conjoints de fait de certains droits et d’obligations, qui sont actuellement reserves aux couples maries ou unis civilement, des lors qu’il y a charge d’enfant.English Abstract: Traditionally, Quebec law has sought to preserve individual free choice by abstaining from imposing the obligations of married couples on unmarried spouses. Until recently, one would have thought a change in this situation to be possible owing to a shift in doctrine and case-law where to protect an economically disadvantaged spouse and prevent discrimination, an assimilation of unmarried spouses as married or civilly united couples would be favoured as regards the patrimonial effects of their union. Yet, in the Walsh case, the Supreme Court of Canada did a major reversal of precedent, as regards the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by confirming the validity of excluding unmarried spouses from a legislative scheme for the automatic sharing of family property. The authors consider that the Supreme Court’s approach, which is resolutely autonomic, lacks in subtlety and in turn, they call for a continued social debate on the opportunity for implementing a protective legal framework more restrictive for unmarried spouses. Without completely abandoning the idea of individual autonomy, they maintain that society cannot dismiss the problem of financial insecurity experienced by single-parent families in a social environment of increasingly broken families. As such, responsibility for children constitutes one of the determining economic insecurity factors in post-separation households. The issue of protection is therefore an urgent one in such cases and may only be resolved — according to the authors — by applying to unmarried spouses certain rights and obligations that are currently reserved for marriage and civil union, once there is a dependent child.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".