MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413756730 · doi:10.37381/4y8vfk60

Reflections on the Process of Recodification of the Quebec Civil Code

2019· article· en· W4413756730 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jean-Louis Baudouin

Bibliographic record

VenueTulane European and Civil Law Forum · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicComparative and International Law Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcess (computing)Code (set theory)Civil codeComputer sciencePolitical scienceComputer securityBusinessProgramming languageLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The task of reforming the law is not an easy one.Those who have labored in reform organizations and commissions know that law reform is a long, demanding, sometimes frustrating process that often brings its authors no public recognition, but instead, criticism and reproach.I remember, to take but one example, the uproar brought on by the suggestion, though quite good, that we made to the Canadian Law Reform Commission in 1978, that in criminal trials the prosecution and defense be obliged to communicate to one another the main elements of proof before the trial began.I further remember that an eminent criminal lawyer from Toronto thereafter called us fascists.Indeed, all reform at first instills fear in practitioners (not without reason) as it alters their habits, introduces uncertainty and eliminates achievements, and thereby expertise which they have acquired over the years.It is resisted by doctrine as well, which questions the very validity of rules and the philosophy on which they are elaborated.A good illustration is the recent controversy surrounding the adoption of the proposed law on family patrimony.Reforming a civil code is even more difficult than auacking an ordinary law.A code is a whole, a coordinated, logical ensemble; an intellectual construction whose internal coherence, abstraction and generality set it apart from other forms of legislative expression.Working on a code is somewhat like working on a delicate timepiece in which each part, no matter how tiny, carries out some function in the whole.Each time the legislator alters provisions of the Civil Code, he must measure the impact his reform will have on the other parts of the law and ask himself whether the reform jeopardizes certain basic principles to which the law ought to remain true.The reform of the Civil Code of Quebec formally began in 1955 with the adoption of a law authorizing a reform.In reality, however, work truly commenced in 1962 with the first reform of matrimonial regimes.In 1965 it was given renewed vigor when Professor Paul-Andr6 Crdpau, at the head of the Office for the Revision of the Civil Code (O.R.C.C.), undertook a systematization of revisionary work that ended on

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score0.852

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTulane European and Civil Law ForumSame topicComparative and International Law StudiesFrench-language works237,207