MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4256667825 · doi:10.7202/1027341ar

Jacques Deslauriers, Loi sur la faillite et l’insolvabilité. Législation, jurisprudence et doctrine. Collection Alter Ego, 4 édition, Montréal, Wilson & Lafleur, 2004, 1120 pages, ISBN 2-89127-643-4 Patrick A. Molinari (dir.), Dialogues about Justice: The Public, Legislators, Courts and the Media / Dialogues sur la justice : le public, le législateur, les tribunaux et les médias, Montréal, Éditions Thémis, 2003, 428 pages, ISBN 2-89400-179-7 Marie-Claude Prémont, Tropismes du droit. Logique métaphorique et logique métonymique du langage juridique, Montréal, Liber, 2003, pages 186, ISBN 2-89578-032-3

2005· article· fr· W4256667825 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Sophie Archambault, Hồng Quân Nguyễn

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue générale de droit · 2005
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLaw in Society and Culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesJurisprudencePolitical scienceLawArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Jacques Deslauriers, Loi sur la faillite et l’insolvabilité. Législation, jurisprudence et doctrine. Collection Alter Ego, 4e édition, Montréal, Wilson & Lafleur, 2004, 1120 pages, ISBN 2-89127-643-4 / Patrick A. Molinari (dir.), Dialogues about Justice: The Public, Legislators, Courts and the Media / Dialogues sur la justice : le public, le législateur, les tribunaux et les médias, Montréal, Éditions Thémis, 2003, 428 pages, ISBN 2-89400-179-7 / Marie-Claude Prémont, Tropismes du droit. Logique métaphorique et logique métonymique du langage juridique, Montréal, Liber, 2003, pages 186, ISBN 2-89578-032-3. Un article de la revue Revue générale de droit (Volume 35, numéro 2, 2005, p. 205-347) diffusée par la plateforme Érudit.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.890
Threshold uncertainty score0.220

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.010
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0610.030

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue générale de droit→Same topicLaw in Society and Culture→French-language works237,207→