MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1498532345

MEETING POINTS BETWEEN THE TRADITIONS OF ENGLISH–AMERICAN COMMON LAW AND CONTINENTAL-FRENCH CIVIL LAW. Developments and the experience of postmodernity in Canada

2011· article· en· W1498532345 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Csaba Varga

Bibliographic record

VenueCurentul Juridic, The Juridical Current, Le Courant Juridique · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticultural Socio-Legal Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawPolitical scienceSupreme courtMulticulturalismCivil law (Civil law)Common lawComparative lawSociologyPublic law
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The scale of globalisation witnessed in Canada - as exemplified by the treatment of (1) the transformation of the role of precedents; (2) the multicultural and multifactoral search for common solution instead of law-based administration of justice; (3) dissolving definition by and conclusion from the law under the aegis of legal socio-positivism; accompanied with (4) prerogatives acquired by courts to a) unfold statutory provisions through principles while judicial actualisation, (b) constitutionalise issues, and c) impose the Supreme Court upon national community as its supreme moral authority - is spreading over the European Union as well. The point is to release law from positivated self-restriction by embedding it in informal cultural community through gradually eliminating the rest of substantivity from it, in order to treat it in an exclusively procedural sense in the final account. This involves change in the very concept and technicality of law, with consequences utterly unforeseeable. Globalisation does not necessarily result in, but is expected to secure, that “sustainable development” will be accompanied by “sustainable diversity”. Accordingly, great legal cultures and traditions what the human kind has evolved until now have to preserve their share in interaction and as source for future inspiration as well.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.536
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.007
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.244 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurentul Juridic, The Juridical Current, Le Courant JuridiqueSame topicMulticultural Socio-Legal StudiesFrench-language works237,207