MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1913460201 · doi:10.4337/9781782540519.00016

Legal Traditions and Economic Performances: Theory and Evidence

2010· article· en· W1913460201 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Carmine Guerriero

Bibliographic record

VenueUvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCulture, Economy, and Development Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdjudicationImitationPolitical scienceComparative lawCivil law (Civil law)Law and economicsLegal historyLawCommon lawPublic lawSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A legal tradition . . . is not a set of rules of law . . .rather it is a set of deeply rooted, historically conditioned attitudes about . . . the proper organization and operation of a legal system.The legal tradition relates the legal system to the culture of which it is a partial expression.(Merryman, 1969, p. 2) Introduction: A Primer on Legal TraditionsThe law and the economy are profoundly influenced, in much of the world, by either the civil or the common law legal tradition.A legal tradition or origin is a bundle of well-defined institutions governing either the creation of the law or the procedural style of dispute adjudication, and sharing a common "historical background, [a common] characteristic mode of thought in legal matters [and a common] ideology" (Zweigert and Ktz, 1998, p. 68).Common law originated in thirteenth century England, and has been transplanted through colonization to England's ex-colonies. 1 Civil law has its roots in Roman law, and has been imported through the Napoleonic codes to Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain and Portugal.These last four powers, along with France, spread it to the Near East, Latin America, Northern Africa and Indochina.Structurally the two traditions operate in different ways: while common law accords a key role to precedents and allows more procedural discretion to lower adjudicating courts, civil law relies on legal codes and bright-line adjudication rules (Zweigert and Ktz, 1998).Building on the wide differences between the French civil law and the English common law, 2 Rafael La Porta, Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes, Andrei Shleifer, and Robert Vishny (or LLSV) proposed, in two influential papers (LLSV, 1997 and 1998), the idea that the exogenous transplantation process brought not only 144 * I am grateful to Toke Aidt, Giuseppe Dari-Mattiacci, and Francesco Parisi for valuable discussions on earlier drafts.1 These are the United States, Canada, Australia, and many countries in Africa and Asia.2 While the Austrian and Russian empires designed legal systems that were quite similar to the French, Germany, Switzerland and the Scandinavian countries embraced judge-made law along with bright-line adjudication rules (David et al., 1995).However, this variation is of little relevance because Scandinavian countries did not have colonies and Germany had a strong influence only on

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.540
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations5
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam)Same topicCulture, Economy, and Development StudiesFrench-language works237,207