MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3012435264 · doi:10.19195/0137-1134.112.14

Hipoteka polska a hypothèque prowincji Quebec. Porównanie z perspektywy prawa prywatnego międzynarodowego

2018· article· en· W3012435264 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tomasz Tomczak

Bibliographic record

VenuePrzegląd Prawa i Administracji · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicConflict of Laws and Jurisdiction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceScope (computer science)LawPrivate lawConflict of lawsDoctrineElement (criminal law)Perspective (graphical)Comparative lawInternational law

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE POLISH ‘HIPOTEKA’ AND QUEBEC’S ‘HYPOTHEQUE’Polish hipoteka and Quebec’s hypotheque constitute security rights which are commonly used in their legal systems to secure contractual obligations of various type. Both have been extensively elaborated in legal doctrine and case-law; although mainly from the perspective of the national substantive and procedural law. In times of increased human and capital mobility, more and more conflicts concerning legal issues regarding these institutions may arise. Therefore, this article focuses on the private international law perspective and refer to the substantive law of Poland and Quebec only in scope necessary for private international analysis. It shows how institutions such as hipoteka or hypotheque shall be treated by the Polish or Quebec courts in cases having a foreign element and what conflict of laws problem may arise in reference to them.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.177

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePrzegląd Prawa i AdministracjiSame topicConflict of Laws and JurisdictionFrench-language works237,207