Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breach of contract is a wrong, but this is not a simple concept, and the remedies attached to wrongs are very varied. The existing law does not attach all these remedies to all breaches of contract. It might be argued that it should do so. Logic, simplicity and consistency would seem to favour the attribution to all legal wrongs of similar consequences. But there are other values at stake. A proposal to attribute all the consequences of wrongs to breaches of contract must be tested, like all legal proposals, by envisaging the consequences of the proposed rule and evaluating them.An opposite view of the matter would be that breach of contract is not in any sense a wrong, and occasionally this view has been supported. Holmes maintained that there was no legal duty to perform a contract, but only to perform or to pay damages at the promisor's option: and his published correspondence with Pollock shows that Holmes adhered to this opinion throughout his life despite cogent arguments to the contrary adduced by Pollock. A modern version of Holmes' view has appeared in the shape of the economic doctrine of efficient breach, to the effect that breach of contract may be economically efficient, since the contract breaker is made better off by it, and the other party no worse off on receipt of full compensation. Holmes' view has been called heretical and the concept of economic breach fallacious, but, it will be suggested, they cannot be entirely discounted. As with many heresies and fallacies, error lies not so much in the basic idea (which may tend, if not overstated, to illuminate an aspect of the truth), but in supposing that this one aspect is the only aspect, and that it overrides all other considerations.
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 | 0.018 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.114 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".