Quelle place pour le droit aux origines de l’enfant adopté en France et au Québec ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research Framework: The study focuses on the right to know one’s origins of the adopted child from a comparative law perspective. Objectives: The objective of the research is to provide an analysis of the French law, dating from January 22, 2002, and the 2017 law in Quebec, both of which provide adopted people access to the identity of their parents of origin. Methodology: This study mainly uses a positivist methodology of legal research analyzing legislation, case law and legal literature, as well as comparative law (France/Quebec). Results: Research shows that both France and Québec have sought to reconsider the place in history of the adopted child by substituting the principle of secrecy of their origins for a logic favouring transparency. Yet the balance between children and their birth parents often tilts in favour of the latter who can prevent the secret from being released, sometimes even until after death. Conclusions: The relaxation of the law towards more transparency is a step in the right direction. The exercise seems however unfinished as long as the question of the right to identity (including the origins), recognized in particular by the UN Convention in regards to the rights of the Child, of adoptees and those conceived through medically assisted reproduction will not be discussed as part of a comprehensive law reform.Contribution: Through an analysis of the positive law in force in France and Quebec on the accessibility of adopted people to their origins, this text will help to understand the issues relating to this question and the difficult arbitration between the interests of adopted children and their birth parents. It also opens up a reflection on the accessibility of children born by medically assisted procreation to their origins.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".