MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323519094 · doi:10.17118/11143/19918

La garde de l’animal de compagnie lors de la rupture conjugale

2022· article· fr· W4323519094 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alain Roy

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue de droit Université de Sherbrooke · 2022
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHuman-Animal Interaction Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Note de rechercheLa garde de l'animal de compagnie lors de la rupture conjugale par Alain ROY * Selon l'article 898.1 C.c.Q.introduit en 2015, les animaux ne sont plus juridiquement considérés comme des biens, mais comme des êtres doués de sensibilité qui ont des impératifs biologiques.Aux dires de l'auteur, cette qualification novatrice des animaux pose les bases d'un nouveau paradigme auquel les tribunaux doivent faire écho, notamment en ce qui regarde le traitement de l'animal de compagnie lors d'une rupture conjugale.Voyant dans la notion d'impératifs biologiques de l'animal l'équivalent conceptuel du principe de l'intérêt de l'enfant, l'auteur avance l'idée selon laquelle le juge chargé de régler le divorce ou la séparation des conjoints doit statuer sur la « garde » du chien ou du chat en fonction des besoins essentiels de l'animal, indépendamment du titre de propriété. *Professeur titulaire à la Faculté de droit de l'Université de Montréal.L'auteur tient à remercier M e Sophie Gaillard et M e Michaël Lessard pour leurs précieux commentaires.Évidemment, les opinions exprimées dans le présent texte n'engagent que leur auteur. II.La décision concernant l'animal de compagnie lors de la rupture conjugale .........................

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.010
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue de droit Université de SherbrookeSame topicHuman-Animal Interaction StudiesFrench-language works237,207