MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2230719886

혼합법계의 발견과 주요 혼합법계 국가의 법체계

2008· article· ko· W2230719886 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
박희호

Bibliographic record

Venue외법논집 · 2008
Typearticle
Languageko
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawCivil law (Civil law)JurisdictionPrivate lawCommon lawComparative lawPolitical sciencePublic lawLegal historyPossession (linguistics)SovereigntyMunicipal lawSociologyPoliticsPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The mixed jurisdiction as the third legal family has to show three characteristics that set them apart form other jurisdictions. The first characteristic feature ist the specificity of the mixture to which we refer. These Systems are built upon dual foundations of common-law and civil-law materials. The second characteristic is quantative and psychological. In the mixed-jurisdiction family one expects a large number of principles and rules to be of distinguishable pedigree, even including non-substantive aspects of the law, such as the nature of institutions and the style of legal thinking. Psychologically speaking, actors and observers within such a system will be cognizant of and will acknowledge the dual character of the law. It is to recognize a prevailing state of the legal mind. The third characteristic is structural. In every case the civil law will be cordoned off within the field of private law, thus creating the distinction between private continental law and public Anglo-American law. These three characteristics are the lowest common denominators of a mixed jurisdiction. If they ar accepted as reliable criteria, however, they afford a means of differentiating mixed jurisdictions from a wide variety of hybrid and pluralist systems. According to Palmer are there three historical situations in the mixed jurisdictions. The first occurred during the colonial era, when a civil-law sovereign transferred an overseas possession to a common-law colonial power. Intercolonial transfers during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries were quite numerous and served as the triggering event for fashioning civil-law/common-law mixtures in South Africa, Quebec, the Philippines, Puerto Rich and Louisiana. The second situation occurred in Scotland which acquired a structurally mixed system by merging its sovereignty with that of Britain under the Act of Union of 1707. The third situation developed in the second half of the twentieth century. Israel's legal system was hybridized during the post-independence era because of an internal demographic and cultural shift within the society itself.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.012
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue외법논집Same topicLegal principles and applicationsFrench-language works237,207