Bibliographic record
Abstract
La notion de contrat d'adhésion s'est retrouvée au centre d'une intense controverse doctrinale à l'occasion de son introduction en droit français par l'ordonnance du 10 février 2016. À peine adoptée, sa définition était réécrite lors des débats parlementaires ayant conduit à la loi de ratification du 20 avril 2018. Un processus similaire avait eu lieu, plus de vingt ans auparavant, lors de sa consécration dans le nouveau Code civil du Québec. Puisant à une même source doctrinale, la notion de contrat d'adhésion avait longtemps conservé une vocation purement explicative du droit positif, sans constituer une catégorie du droit commun. Désormais, cependant, le contrat d'adhésion transforme aussi bien les solutions du droit positif que la construction doctrinale qui en résulte. En croisant les perspectives françaises et québécoises, dans une approche théorique et pratique, les contributeurs du présent ouvrage proposent une analyse enrichie et renouvelée de la notion de contrat d'adhésion.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".