Bibliographic record
Abstract
PETER DEVONSHIRE'S WORK PROVIDES, for the fi rst time, a much-needed, sustained examination of the remedy and procedure of accounting for profi ts and the mechanics underlying the duty to account.Multijurisdictional in scope, and thus not always authoritative for any particular jurisdiction, Devonshire's work is well worth consideration, not least because of its systematic and thorough analysis of the subject.By this I mean that the book not only considers the decided cases to describe what the law is, but goes further to discuss why the law is as it is, or why it should be otherwise, and if so, how.After a brief introduction, the book begins with an account of the historical origins of the remedy going back to courts of common law in the thirteenth century.From there it sets out the development of the account of profi ts (Account) from its medieval roots through to its adoption by the Court of Chancery and then to its modern application as a remedy granted chiefl y in respect of equitable wrongs.3 Readers familiar with the remedy and the historical interplay of common law and equity will already know some, if not much, of this tale.For those unfamiliar with this aspect of English legal history, the retelling is useful and does much to demystify what can at fi rst appear to be an arcane subject.Th e term "account of profi ts" alone requires some explanation in light of the fact that it sounds nothing like a remedy and, as Devonshire explains, actually results from a centuries-long confl ation of the name of a procedure and a cause of action with the outcome sought.4 Having given this background, Devonshire then elaborates on the essential elements of the Account and its functions.5 Here the book begins to connect the
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.098 | 0.072 |
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".