Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter provides us with numerous examples of the different approaches taken by the English and Canadian courts, be it to the assessment of damages or the theoretical treatment of contract and unjust enrichment. It identifies the impact of different constitutional structures and the increasing importance of supra-national bodies such as the European Union. The United Kingdom, as part of the European Union, must now face moves for harmonisation of its laws of contract and unjust enrichment, whilst the proximity of the United States to Canada signifies a very different influence on its jurisprudence. Both possess common law systems in close proximity to civilian, or, to be more accurate mixed systems. Unjust enrichment, which can loosely be traced back to Roman law, demonstrates the existence of principles of law which transcend legal systems, albeit interpreted in a manner reflecting the culture and legal traditions of the state. Keywords: Canadian court; common law systems; culture traditions; English court; laws of contract; laws of unjust enrichment; Roman law
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 | 0.011 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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 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".