Prescripción en el contrato de seguro ¿Tradición o modernismo?
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The traditional prescription notion (or concept) and more specifically, in theinsurance contract, is given by its objective interpretation. However, this notion(or concept) has been changing, by the incorrect (in our view) introduction (oraddition) of purely subjective elements or criteria.In fact, the purpose of this paper will be to do (or to carry out) a study about the traditional conception of the prescription, as opposed to the “modern” trendand for many controversial, subjective vision of the prescription. This last visionthat is linked with the Estoppel Theory (venire contra factum proprium).Once presented the theoretical and legal view of the traditional and modern concept of the prescription, we will focus on the position adjusted to the Colombian legal system, that should guide judges when making decisions adjusted and according to the law.To demonstrate the concepts of prescription we will presented the arbitrationaward of Distral SA (EMA) General Electric Canada Inc. vs. La Nacional Compañía de Seguros Generales de Colombia S.A (traditional concept), and the arbitration awards of Alstom Brasil Ltda Sucursal Colombia vs. Compañía Suramericana de Seguros S.A and Beneficiencia del Valle del Cauca E.I.C.E. vs. La Previsora Compañía de Seguros (modern concept).Finally, there will be a critic intended to demonstrate the legal error of arbitration courts in seeking to incorporate or apply principles or theories, without carefully analyzing the factual basis on which lay, that do not have legal validity in the Colombian legal system.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it