Bibliographic record
Abstract
L'importance nouvelle accordée au concept de patrimoine par l'Office de révision du Code civil prend pour point de départ le concept opposé de personne. Dans le but d'éclairer la nature exacte de cette opposition, la présente étude se penche sur l'évolution du concept de patrimoine du droit romain à nos jours. C'est ainsi que de la notion de Patrimonium, dont l'unité est avant tout procédurale, l'auteur remonte au Code Napoléon qui lui ne traite qu'accidentellement du patrimoine dans une perspective davantage utilitariste que transcendentale. L'auteur aborde ensuite les commentateurs du Code, en particulier Aubry et Rau, Zachariae et Savigny, lesquels élaborent une véritable théorie du patrimoine. Avec le Code civil du Bas-Canada, enfin, qui tout comme le Code Napoléon, n'accorde qu'une importance mineure au concept de patrimoine, l'auteur complète son analyse historique pour critiquer ensuite le Projet de Code civil qui prétend corriger certaines distorsions apportées au concept original de patrimoine. En effet, l'oeuvre de l'Office de révision, ainsi que le souligne l'auteur, n'est pas elle-même dépourvue d'ambiguïté.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.044 | 0.013 |
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".