Liberté, responsabilité et utilité : la bonne foi comme instrument de justice contractuelle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis outlines the guiding principles of obligations law in Quebec, more particularly its contractual component. We are trying to establish a model of analysis that will seek to define and legitimize the precepts of justice that should guide judicial intervention in contractual relationships. As part of this study, we identify certain principles that are fundamental in the theory of contract: notably, commutative justice, contract commutability, subjective rights and legitimate interests. We establish the relationship between each of these basic concepts to conclude that to be consistent with the principles of commutative justice, contract commutability shall not be based on a monetary equivalent of benefits but on the respect of a standard based on peaceful coexistence of rights and interests. It consists therefore of a normalization of contractual relations which ceases to be purely subjective. This finding leads to several inferences: the addition of the circumstances of the execution and termination of the contract, rather than simply its creation, to the possibilities of judicial review, a better legitimization of such review and the recognition of the principle of good faith as a privileged instrument for a fairer contractual commutability. Moreover, the last part of our thesis is devoted to examining judicial practice interventions based on good faith in order to illustrate the principles expressed in the study.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".