MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7161957964 · doi:10.82308/32596

L'équilibre des prestations : une condition de reconnaissance de la force obligatoire du contrat?

2001· dissertation· fr· W7161957964 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Élise Charpentier

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean and International Contract Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutonomyEconomic JusticeSet (abstract data type)Civil codeOrder (exchange)Contract theoryStructuringAction (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The theory of the autonomy of the will plays a central structuring role in Quebec's positive law. It has given rise to a conception of contractual justice that has contributed to the transformation of the role played by equality in contract and influenced the treatment of unfair contract by positive law in Quebec. It cannot however serve as an analytical framework for explaining the entire juridical regime applicable to contract. Based on the theory of the autonomy of the will, positive law states the principle according to which lesion does not vitiate consent, but it also provides for numerous exceptions based on ideas that proceed from another conception of contractual justice. Moreover, although the Civil Code does not set forth any rule destined to ensure equality in contract the idea according to which contracts may not lead to the exploitation of a party by the other and must respect some sense of fairness can be put forward. A look at the body of rules in positive law pertaining to equality in contract shows that this idea plays an important role in Quebec's positive law.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.124

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.008
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0370.004

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEuropean and International Contract LawFrench-language works237,207