Le consentement matrimonial : essai d'une approche historique, canonique et civile
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L'objectif de cette these est de mettre en exergue la construction du lien matrimonial a travers les traditions romano-germanique, l'exegese canonico-protestante et egalement l'apport civil. L'origine du mariage consensuel est le chainon indispensable pour une meilleure apprehension du consentement matrimonial actuel, autant en droit canonique qu'en droit civil. En droit canonique, le consentement matrimonial s'apparente fortement a un contrat finalise, que ce soit sous les Codes de 1917, 1983, et meme sous le CCEO de 1990. En droit civil, la question legitime a se poser est celle de savoir si le consentement matrimonial est un contrat ordinaire, ou est-il reellement sui generis ? Dans cette optique, les consentements de la famille, ceux des epoux, et les conditions supplementaires requises pour contracter mariage seront analyses. La premiere partie sera donc entierement consacree au consentement eclaire. Or, il arrive frequemment que ce consentement soit altere a differents degres et de differentes manieres, ce qui fera l'objet de la seconde partie. A ce titre, les absences du consentement pour defaut d'intention conjugale, les vices du cote de l'intelligence et de la volonte, ainsi que les consequences de ces alterations du consentement matrimonial dans les deux droits (canonique et civil), seront particulierement interessants a mettre en lumiere afin d'eclairer davantage la nouvelle physionomie juridique du mariage.
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 | 0.013 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".