Principles of Civil Liability Arising from Bodily Injuries in Iranian and English Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Explaining the principles of civil liability in cases that someone injured bodily is now one of the most important issues of law. In fact, in these cases, the question is why someone should compensate other damage? While has not been violated of the contract. If doing the action is allowed, and the subject has the legal authority to do it or fault or bad intention does not occur from him, can be imagined again a responsibility for him? In this regard, civil and criminal liability separate from each other and each is analyzed separately. Foundations of theoretical, practical, legal and in addition to these, in our rights jurisprudence foundations have been added to the former cases. Each of these has sub sets, and each tried to explain that when someone injured bodily the other, why and how to compensate? Who should compensate? To compensate, what must be proved? And of course, in similar cases, results are obtained that each has minor and sometimes major differences. Now, the theoretical foundations (fault, risk, etc.) are accepted and analyzed in Iranian law and in English law, but absolutely none of them have gone towards one of the comments.
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 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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".