MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2942549667 · doi:10.7202/1058354ar

Comments on the Influence of Canon Law on the Common Law Legal Tradition

2019· article· en· W2942549667 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue générale de droit · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical Legal Studies and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawCivil law (Civil law)Common lawCanon lawComparative lawPhilosophy of lawPublic lawPrivate lawSources of lawPolitical scienceSociologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, the author questions the conventional view that the civil law and common law traditions are radically different in their reception of Roman Law. He argues that Roman Law concepts, mediated by canon law, exerted a considerable influence over the common law. He identifies a number of channels through which this influence has shaped common law concepts. Thus, canonical equitas probably served as a model for the equitable rules bases on good faith. Although common law evolved in a distinctive way, because of procedural considerations, its evolutionary path had already been followed by that of canon 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.911
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.230 · 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