Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This third volume in a series on Comparative Succession Law concerns the entitlement of family members to override the provisions of a deceased person’s will to obtain money or assets (or more money or assets) from the person’s estate. Some countries, notably those in the civil law tradition (such as France or Germany), confer a pre-ordained share of the deceased’s estate or of its value on certain members of the deceased’s family, and especially on the deceased’s children and spouse. Other countries, notably those in the common law tradition (such as England, Canada, or Australia), leave the matter to the discretion of the court, the amount awarded depending primarily on financial need. Whichever form it takes, mandatory family provision is both a protection against disinheritance and also, therefore, a restriction on testamentary freedom. The volume focuses on Europe and on countries influenced by the European experience. In addition to detailed treatment of the law in Austria, England and Wales, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Scotland, and Spain, the book also has chapters on Australia and New Zealand, South Africa, the United States, Canada, the countries of Latin America, and the People’s Republic of China. Some other countries are covered more briefly, and there is a separate chapter on Islamic law. The book opens with accounts of Roman law and of the law in medieval and early-modern Europe, and it concludes with a comparative assessment of the law as it is today in the countries and legal traditions surveyed in this volume.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".