L'influence de la common law sur le droit des assurances québécois: une pratique qui coule de sources ou un réflexe mal fondé?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vraisemblablement en raison de l'origine même de l'assurance et de son développement économique en Angleterre et Amérique du Nord, tout un chacun prétend que le droit des assurances québécois origine de la common law. En conséquence, le droit québécois est fortement influencé par celle-ci alors qu'il s'agit pourtant de droit civil incorporé au Code civil du Québec. Cette étude a comme objectif de démontrer que les sources du droit québécois des assurances ne proviennent pas exclusivement ni même principalement de la common law, mais plutôt de diverses sources. Elle vise également à critiquer l'importation de la common law dans le droit québécois et la façon dont cette importation est faite, et à soulever les conséquences que cela peut avoir non seulement sur le droit en tant que tel, mais aussi sur les juristes, les assurés et les assureurs.
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 | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".