MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389333235 · doi:10.7202/1105876ar

LA CONSTRUCTION PAR LA DOCTRINE DANS LES MANUELS DE DROIT CIVIL FRANÇAIS ET QUÉBÉCOIS DU STATUT JURIDIQUE DE L’EMBRYON HUMAIN. VOLET 1 : LA MAXIME « INFANS CONCEPTUS »

2013· article· fr· W4389333235 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Gaële Gidrol-Mistral, A. Bonet Sarís

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue de droit Université de Sherbrooke · 2013
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth, Medicine and Society
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

: In civil law, “the unborn child” is inextricably linked to the Roman maxim of infans conceptus. It is through this concept that civilists address the issue of the legal personality of the embryo. To implement this legal technique, scholars of the civil law tradition utilize four different interpretative theories: that of a stricto sensu legal fiction, that of an actual legal personality, as well the concepts of a conditional legal personality subject to either a suspensive or resolutory condition. Underlying these concepts is the legal status of the embryo, considered to be an “object” for the tenants of the idea of a legal fiction, a “person” for those embracing the idea of a real legal personality or a status dependent on a resolutory condition (precarious legal personality), and a “sui generis category” for those advancing the idea that legal status is subject to a suspensive condition (anticipated legal personality). This essay, through a detailed analysis of the terminology employed in civil law textbooks dealing with the subject of civil rights, as well as four articles written by Quebec authors in the same subject area, identifies the interpretative theory surrounding the use of the maxim infans conceptus that each respective author uses. This analysis has revealed certain divergences between the presentation that is made surrounding the embryo’s legal status (object, person, or sui generis category), and the ensuing applicable legal rules. This essay highlights and updates certain debates surrounding the concept of infans conceptus, illustrating the difficulty of elaborating a coherent theory in this area. This essay notably discusses the type of rights generally recognized for an embryo (patrimonial and/or extrapatrimonial rights), identifies certain mechanisms aimed at protecting the “unborn child” (conservative or executory measures), as well as the possibility of applying the Latin maxim infans conceptus to ex utero embryos.

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)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.339

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.019
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.248
Teacher spread0.240 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue de droit Université de SherbrookeSame topicHealth, Medicine and SocietyFrench-language works237,207