MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2967660575

LA REFONTE DU CODE CIVIL ROUMAIN ET LE CODE CIVIL DU QUEBEC

2010· article· fr· W2967660575 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marian Nicolae, Mircea-Dan Bob

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Bar Review · 2010
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicConflict of Laws and Jurisdiction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCivil codeDecreeLegislationLawCode (set theory)StatutePolitical scienceRomanianCivil procedurePoliticsCivil law (Civil law)Commercial lawComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

No other Eastern European country preserved its modern civil code during the socialist era; Romania is the one exception. Greatly inspired by the Napoleonic Code, Romania’s civil code came into force on December 1, 1865. The only major changes it underwent between 1945 and 1989 concerned individuals and extinctive prescription. Its first book (“Of Persons”) was repealed in 1954 and replaced with a Family Code, receded by a special statute dedicated to physical persons and legal entities (Decrees Nos. 31 and 32 of 1954). Then in 1958, a new, modern regime of extinctive prescription was promulgated (Decree No. 167). Attempts at reform, like those of 1939 and 1971, were successively abandoned. After the 1989 revolutionary movement, the revision of civil legislation was considered one of the most important economic and social reforms. The revision of the existing civil code or the drafting of a new code was envisaged as the central problem of such a reform. This analysis illustrates the background against which the new Romanian civil code was drafted: the methodological debates, the practical organization of the work and the political problems, in an attempt to draw some general conclusions as to the final result.

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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.849
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Bar ReviewSame topicConflict of Laws and JurisdictionFrench-language works237,207