MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1493288650

The Structure of Unjust Enrichment Law: Is Restitution a Right or a Remedy

2002· article· en· W1493288650 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen A. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueLoyola of Los Angeles law review · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRestitutionUnjust enrichmentLawDamagesHarmDutyTrespassOrder (exchange)Breach of contractPolitical scienceLaw and economicsEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay provides a model for distinguishing between court orders that directly enforce primary duties (e.g., to not trespass) and court orders that require defendants to repair the harm caused by failing to perform a primary duty (e.g., to pay compensatory damages), and then applies the model to the case of restitutionary orders (e.g., a court order that the recipient of a mistaken payment pay an equivalent sum to the payor). Drawing upon, on the one hand, theoretical arguments about the nature of law and the moral foundations of duties to repair, and, on the other hand, the nature of restitutionary orders, Professor Smith concludes that restitutionary orders can be either direct enforcement orders or orders to repair – sometimes they are the former, sometimes the latter.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.049
Scholarly communication0.0090.013
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0080.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.287 · 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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLoyola of Los Angeles law reviewSame topicLegal principles and applicationsFrench-language works237,207