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 OpenAlex
Stephen A. Smith

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score0.821

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

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