Rights and Remedies: A Complex Relationship
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
This essay explores the relationship between rights and remedies in the common law, focusing in particular on those rights and remedies that common law courts invoke when they are resolving private disputes. I will defend two main theses — one descriptive and one explanatory — about the nature of this relationship. The descriptive thesis is that the relationship is complex. Rights and remedies, I will argue, are related in five different ways: (1) remedies sometimes directly replicate rights; (2) remedies sometimes transform rights into near substitutes; (3) remedies sometimes create entirely new rights; (4) remedies are sometimes given where plaintiffs have no rights; and (5) some rights are not protected by remedies at all. The explanatory thesis is that the reason the relationship between rights and remedies is complex is that the question of how citizens should behave towards one another is different than the question of what courts should do on proof that a citizen has misbehaved.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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