Comment critiquer le droit civil? Une proposition d’innovation méthodologique féministe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prenant acte de la rareté des analyses critiques du droit civil au Québec, l’autrice veut contribuer à la recherche dans le domaine du droit en proposant une nouvelle méthodologie féministe. Elle s’appuie sur la théorie du point de vue situé et une prise en considération du pouvoir performatif de la norme de genre (et des rapports sociaux de sexe) sur le droit positif. Ces outils l’amènent à remettre en question des concepts fondamentaux en droit civil et à mieux comprendre le rôle du Code civil du Québec dans la reproduction des rapports sociaux de sexe. De manière plus pratique, l’autrice utilise cette méthodologie pour s’interroger sur le sujet de droit, en droit civil, et la construction apparemment asexuée de catégories telles que celles de « propriétaire » et de « locataire ».
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 | 0.019 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.056 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| 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".