Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Is there such a thing as a ‘Law of Remedies’? The answer probably depends on your juridical provenance. Those who were educated in England, the United States or Australia will agree that quite a few scholars in these jurisdictions devote their writing, inter alia, to questions surrounding remedies. A. Burrows, for example, covers judicial remedies in his textbook, Remedies for Torts and Breach of Contract . The focus is on principles governing the remedial law instead of substantive tort or contract law. Furthermore, the book is not restricted to remedies available, for example, for breach of contract, but ‘treat(s) the area as a coherent whole’. A. Burrows argues that this has the great advantage’ of enabling the many similarities, as well as the differences, between tortious and contractual remedies and their governing principles to be fully appreciated’. Similarly, S. Waddams points out that the ‘ Law of Remedies’ ‘is worthy of study because it enables illuminating parallels to be drawn that cross the boundaries between contract and tort, and between law and equity’. Although there might be specific principles for the assessment of damages in intellectual property (IP) law or contract law, there seems to be a value in looking at different types of remedies side by side. In either case, textbooks in, for example, the UK, the US, Canada or Australia exclusively handle remedies, such as damages, account of profits, injunctions or specific performance. Admittedly, this is a recent phenomenon. The origins of a ‘remedies scholarship’ can be found in the 1970s. It was only in 1972 that F.H. Lawson published the first scholarly work dedicated to remedies. Since then, the ‘Law of Remedies’ appears to have become an increasingly ‘stand-alone’ research area. At the beginning of this century, R. Zakrzewski tried to classify remedies. T.F. Cotter focuses on an economic and comparative analysis of remedies in patent law. Recently, a conference at the University of Cambridge explored themes and controversies with respect to commercial remedies. Previously, scholars reflected on how to justify private law remedies. More edited volumes can be located easily. And finally, J. Berryman claimed that meanwhile ‘(t)he law of remedies has truly come of age’.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.011 |
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".