Disposición unilateral de la vivienda familiar: Peculiaridades de la ineficacia y remedios alternativos. Análisis comparado del Derecho anglosajón canadiense (Unilateral Disposition of Rights on the Matrimonial Home: Peculiarities of the Contract Avoidance and Alternative Remedies (Comparative Analysis of Canadian Anglo-Saxon Law))
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spanish Abstract: Para la eficacia del acto de disposicion de derechos, personales o reales, sobre la vivienda familiar -aunque esta sea privativa de uno solo de los conyuges- el legislador exige que concurra el consentimiento de ambos; De lo contrario, estamos ante una modalidad peculiar de nulidad relativa, que requiere autorizacion judicial (articulos 1320 y 1301 CC). El estudio comparado del Derecho canadiense-anglosajon (que cuenta con identico remedio, si bien mas detallado que en nuestro sistema), resulta util tanto para determinar el margen de arbitrio judicial en estos casos, como para explorar otros posibles remedios aplicables, y nos confirma las razones del caracter imperativo de la norma y su alcance. English Abstract: For the effectiveness of the act of disposition of rights on the matrimonial home - albeit this is deprived of one of the spouses -, the legislator requires the consent of both of them; Otherwise, we are faced with a peculiar modality of relative nullity, which requires judicial authorization (articles 1320 and 1301 Spanish Civil Code). The study of the Anglo-Saxon Canadian law (which has the same remedy, though more detailed than in the Spanish system), is useful both to determine the margin of judicial discretion in these cases, and to explore other possible applicable remedies, and confirms the reasons for the imperativeness of the rule and its scope.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".