MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3123480558

Punitive damages and European law: quo vademus?

2012· book-chapter· en· W3123480558 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cedric Vanleenhove

Bibliographic record

VenueGhent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) · 2012
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPunitive damagesDamagesPlaintiffTortLawPolitical scienceCommon lawHarmBusinessLiability
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The availability of punitive damages has long been recognized in common law jurisdictions including the United States, New Zealand, Canada and Australia. They are not intended to compensate for harm done but are awarded in excess of any compensatory or nominal damages. Compensatory damages on the other hand provide reparation both for economic (e.g. medical costs) and for non-economic losses (e.g. pain and suffering). Punitive damages essentially serve four purposes: to punish the offender for uncivilized conduct, to deter the offender and others from similar conduct, to reward the plaintiff for enforcing the law and to supplement inadequate compensatory damages. Although punitive damages are not intended to compensate the plaintiff, the plaintiff will in fact receive all or some portion of the punitive damages award. Punitive damages are typically limited to tort actions where the defendant has engaged in exceptionally objectionable conduct and are consequently rarely awarded for breach of contract. In the European Union only the common law countries England, Wales, Ireland, Northern Ireland and the mixed system of Cyprus provide for this specific kind of damages in their respective legal systems. The availability of punitive damages however is by no means without constraints. England for example restricts exemplary damages (as they are called there) to three specific circumstances. In continental Europe and in other civil law countries across the globe the concept of punitive damages is scarcely recognized in law. Generally, punitive damages are considered to be a penal sanction.The indemnification obligation of civil law systems primarily has a compensatory purpose, i.e. restoring the injured party’s former situation. The laws of the Continental European countries do not aim to punish the tortfeasor through damages but rather serve to compensate the victim for the damage sustained. As Europe consists of both civil and common law orientated countries, it is interesting to examine the position which European law takes on punitive damages. This article will try to establish that punitive damages do not – perhaps yet – play a significant role in European law. The author shares Koziol’s view that Community law is inconsistent in reflecting the contrast between common law and continental civil law in Europe.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.028
Scholarly communication0.0150.013
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0130.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.202 · 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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGhent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University)Same topicLegal principles and applicationsFrench-language works237,207