MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3125164874 · doi:10.7892/boris.145768

Why Plaintiffs' Attorneys Use Contingent and Defense Attorneys Fixed Fee Contracts

2017· preprint· en· W3125164874 on OpenAlexaff
Winand Emons, Claude Fluet

Bibliographic record

VenueBern Open Repository and Information System (University of Bern) · 2017
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicLaw, Economics, and Judicial Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlaintiffDamagesAmerican ruleBusinessIncentiveContingencyLawActuarial scienceContributory negligenceLaw and economicsEconomicsLiabilityPolitical scienceFinanceTortMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Victims want to collect damages from injurers. Cases differ with respect to the judgment. Attorneysobserve the expected judgment, clients do not. Victims need an attorney to sue; defense attorneys reducethe probability that the plaintiff prevails. Plaintiffs’ attorneys offer contingent fees providing incentivesto proceed with strong and drop weak cases. By contrast, defense attorneys work for fixed fees underwhich they accept all cases. Since the defense commits to fight all cases, few victims sue in the first place.We thus provide an explanation for the fact that in the US virtually all plaintiffs use contingency whiledefendants tend to rely exclusively on fixed fees.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.645
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.158 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBern Open Repository and Information System (University of Bern)Same topicLaw, Economics, and Judicial SystemsFrench-language works237,207