Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Positive law, as presented in scholarship and in jurisprudence, rarely addresses the concept of the legal power. When the term ‘power’ does appear, its scope is limited: it serves as a mere synonym for capacity or competence or to define an individual right. However, the Civil Code of Québec, through its codification of the rules governing the administration of the property of others, reveals the power to be an independent category, distinct from the right. It is a prerogative granted in order to achieve a purpose. The concept of the power justifies a specific regime governing its exercise and specific remedies that sustain it. The category of the power, furthermore, has a scope of application that extends well beyond the administration of the property of others. The development of a general theory of the private power, for which the Title on the Administration of the Property of Others represents a first step, is a useful response to criticisms levelled against rights-centric theories. It also provides a framework for considering which interventions may legitimately be made by one person in the juridical sphere of another.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.068 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".