Bibliographic record
Abstract
I Assurance et langue franaise La decision rendue par la Cour superieure dans la cause Parent c.British Aviation Insurance Group (Canada) Ltd. (J.E.99-693), lance un message clair aux assureurs: les polices d'assurance emises au Quebec doivent etre disponibles en frarn ;ais.Dans cette cause, I' assure, a qui une police en anglais avait ete remise, contestait une disposition invoquee par l'assureur pour lui refuser une indemnite, en faisant valoir que cette clause lui etait inoppo sable puisqu' elle etait redigee en anglais.Le Tribunal donna raison a I' assure en vertu de I' article 55 de la Charte de la langue franr;aise qui stipule qu'un contrat d'adhe sion, tel un contrat d'assurance, doit etre redige en franais, sauf si }'assure consent expressement a recevoir une police redigee en anglais.La Cour observa que les explications fournies par le cour tier sur le contenu de la police ne suffisaient pas a pallier les lacunes linguistiques de celle-ci.Cette cause a ete portee en appel.2. La fausse declaration du courtier invalide-t-elle le droit a l'indemnite ?En vertu du droit actuel, lors de la declaration initiale du risque, que la declaration fausse ou erronee emane soit du preneur, soit du courtier, une telle declaration ne peut etre invoquee par l'assureur pour refuser d'indemniser totalement le sinistre, sauf dans deux circonstances : si la mauvaise foi du preneur est etablie 151
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".