AJUSTEMENT NÉCESSAIRE DU VOLONTARISME CONTRACTUEL : DU VOLONTARISME AU SOLIDARISME ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les mutations contractuelles contemporaines ne justifieraient-elles pas un ajustement épistémologique des relations obligationnelles allant du volontarisme individualiste au volontarisme solidariste? L’autonomie de la volonté ne peut plus être considérée comme l’unique paradigme de gouvernance des relations contractuelles. Plusieurs fois défini, le solidarisme contractuel se traduit en termes de lisibilité du rapport d’obligations. Cette vision novatrice consiste en l’abandon des rapports basés sur la division fort/faible, au profit de l’émergence des relations contractuelles reposant sur la distinction partie en position de force/partie en situation de vulnérabilité. Aujourd’hui, il n’est plus uniquement question d’établir ou de restaurer l’équilibre contractuel en considération de l’appartenance à un groupe donné, plutôt de remettre à chacun ce qui lui revient conformément à la justice commutative. De la logique de la coexistence des intérêts, parvenir à leur conciliation, tel est l’objectif que se fixe la doctrine du solidarisme contractuel.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".