MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3043557801 · doi:10.24215/25251678e389

Intereses: Cuándo, cuánto y cómo. Actualidad y rol en las indemnizaciones de daños y perjuicios

2020· article· es· W3043557801 on OpenAlexaff
Rosario Echevesti

Bibliographic record

VenueDerechos en Acción · 2020
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicComparative International Legal Studies
Canadian institutionsOptech (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

El dinero, al igual que otros bienes, es apto para producir frutos, a los que llamamos intereses. Esto quiere decir que determinada cantidad de dinero, bajo ciertas circunstancias, puede devengar más dinero en el patrimonio de su propietario. Muchas son las definiciones que -sin mayores discordancias- ha dado la doctrina sobre el concepto de interés, centrándolo principalmente en uno de sus enfoques en tanto fruto civil que produce el dinero, y destacando primordialmente su carácter accesorio. También es considerado como un medio sancionatorio, en el caso de los intereses punitorios y sancionatorios.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.025
Scholarly communication0.0090.006
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.342 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDerechos en AcciónSame topicComparative International Legal StudiesFrench-language works237,207