Contract Law in Europe and the United States: Legal Unification in the Civil Law and the Common Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Common law jurisdictions seem to accept internal legal diversity with a fair amount of equanimity. Although the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada are functioning single markets, they have no uniform contract or tort law nor do they seem to think that uniformity in these areas is meritorious or desirable as such. On the other hand civil law jurisdictions in general and the European Union in particular consider the harmonization and unification of contract law as a matter of great importance despite the fact that there is little evidence showing that uniformity is required by the practical requirements of a functioning economic community. The article discusses the development of the Europeanization of private law and speculates on the reasons which may have led European countries to devote much energy to the formulation, if not codification, of uniform rules of European contract law.This article is published in this Research Paper Series with the kind permission of the Tulane European and Civil Law Forum in accordance with its Author/Journal Publication Agreement and Copyright License. For further information on the Journal, please visit its website.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".