Preface: Types of Special Contracts in Europe - Historical Development and European Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contract, contrat, Vertrag. The technical terms may differ, the doctrinal details may vary, yet all Western legal systems recognize the abstract concept of autonomously binding oneself through promise and agreement. However, in everyday life such agreements are never simply manifestations of thepure idea of “contract”, freed from all accidental properties. In practice, an agreement is always a transaction that serves a certain purpose: for example, the exchange of goods or services for money. Parties to such common transactions will in general be motivated by similar goals and interests; and similar disputes arise when these interests clash. To respond to the challenge posed by such “typical” contractual conflicts, a legal system would presumably develop specifi c rules of confl ict resolution: that is, particular rules to correspond with these common “types” of contractual conflict. The law thus generalizes and groups certain “types” of contracts together to address their similar needs, resulting in the growth of a “special” contract law for “specific” contracts. However, if we compare these “special” contract laws within their normative and cultural environments, we are quickly reminded of the limits of this “functional” comparative approach. Law, understood as a tradition, presents itself to a large extent as the product of historical contingency. A historical approach thus seems particularly suitable for a project that aims at a comparative elucidation of the phenomenon of “specific” or “typical” contracts. The major importance of the concept of “nominate contracts” in Continental legal thought can only be properly understood against the backdrop of the tradition of the ius commune, which developed the civil law of contracts within the syntax of Roman 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".