Conjugal unions and disunions in Quebec: Research reportPart I: Couples, money and the law.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ce rapport brosse un portrait descriptif des premiers résultats qui se dégagent du volet « patrimonial » du projet de recherche intitulé : Unions et désunions conjugales au Québec : regards croisés sur les pratiques et les représentations sociales et juridiques de la vie à deux. L’enquête réalisée auprès de 3250 répondants âgés de 25 à 50 ans et vivant en couple visait à cerner, pour la première fois au Québec, les arrangements financiers et juridiques des conjoints mariés ou en union libre concernant les modes de gestion de l’argent, les dynamiques conjugales autour de l’épargne, des dettes, les types de contrat entre partenaires de vie, etc. Même si le Québec est la province ayant la plus forte proportion de couples en union libre au Canada, elle est la province qui accorde la protection la plus minimaliste aux conjoints de fait. Dans ce contexte, nous avons cherché à savoir si les conjoints de fait comprennent les distinctions faites par l’État québécois dans le traitement qui leur est réservé dans les lois sociales et fiscales d’une part, et en droit privé (Code civil), d’autre part. Prévoient-ils l’éventualité d’une rupture par la rédaction de contrats de vie commune ou par des arrangements financiers différents de ceux des couples mariés? Notre enquête permet de constater que près de 50 % des conjoints en union libre ne connaissent pas les règles de droit qui les concernent. Elle montre aussi clairement que le mariage n’est pas synonyme de fusion des avoirs pas plus que l’union libre ne peut être associée à une indépendance complète des conjoints sur le plan financier. Si des différences existent entre les deux types d’unions, elles apparaissent très modestes et ne permettent pas, à notre avis, de justifier le traitement juridique distinct qui prévaut en droit de la famille au Québec. Abstract This report gives a descriptive portrait of the first results emerging from the research project entitled: Unions et désunions conjugales au Quebec : regards croisés sur les pratiques et les représentations sociales et juridiques de la vie à deux. Based on a new survey (N= 3,250) of people living with a partner and aged from 25 to 50 years old, the study aimed to identify, for the first time in Quebec, the financial and legal arrangements of married or unmarried couples. We examined particularly the conjugal dynamics around money management, savings, debts and types of contracts between life partners. Although Quebec is the province with the highest proportion of cohabitant couples in Canada, it is the province with the most minimalist protection available to de facto partners. In this context, we have sought to ascertain whether cohabitants understand the distinctions made by the Quebec government in their treatment of social and fiscal legislation, on one hand, and private law (Civil Code), on the other hand. Do they foresee the possibility of a breakup of their relationship by the drafting of cohabitation contracts/agreements or by putting in place financial arrangements different from those of married couples? Our survey shows that almost 50 % of cohabitants do not know the legal rules that apply to them. The results also clearly show that marriage is not synonymous with asset mergers, nor can cohabitation be associated with complete financial independence between partners. If there are differences between the two types of union, they appear to be very modest and do not, in our view, justify the distinct legal treatment of family law in Quebec.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".