Le contrat face à l'imprévision dans les pays francophones d'Afrique subsaharienne : essai d'une analyse normative socio-économique.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In contrast to the original african laws, the modern african laws, as inherited from colonization, have difficulty to meet the yearning of contemporary african societies for a minimum of ‘’normativization’’ of social relationships. The judge’s refusal to adapt an imbalanced contract, following unforeseeable circumstances change in the civil law of the French-speaking countries of Africa South of the Sahara resulting from the mimicry of the French Civil Code of 1804, is evidence of this. By his obstinate refusal, the judge pursues a colonial policy, despite the independence of the countries concerned. The French Civil Code of 1804, which applies almost in French-speaking countries of Africa South of the Sahara, has been extensively reformed in 2016. A significant gap was thus emerged between African contract law, which remained faithful to the French Civil Code of 1804, and a French law of obligations in modernizing and in line with the contractual practices of French society. Unlike the new French contract law, the legal systems of French-speaking countries of Africa South of the Sahara, do not recognize the power of the judge to adapt the contract startled by the unforeseeable event. Yet, in both traditional and modern Africa, there is no doubt that the contract relation is more united and less individualistic. In Quebec, the reform of the Civil Code in 1994 led to an advance of the contractual justice on the contractual stability. However, just as the C.c.B.C, the drafting of which has been influenced by the French Civil Code of 1804, the C.c.Q does not take into account the theory of unforeseeability, this study seeks to show, on the one hand, that the failure of taking into account the unforeseeability in african civil law as well as in Quebec civil law, is the result of the mimicry of the French Civil Code of 1804. She intends to demonstrate on the other hand that the consideration of unforeseeability in African societies through the relational theory of contract is in line with the contractual practices in African society.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".