Compensating a Legal Person for Moral Damage in Jordanian Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The issue of compensating the legal person for the moral damage it causes to it has raised a great argument of controversy in Jordan, especially in light of the refusal to recognize the rights attached to the natural person of the legal person. This research came to identify the legal nature of the legal personality and the moral damage and the position of the Jordanian law on it, and to determine the feasibility, adequacy and appropriateness of the legal texts contained in the Jordanian civil law in knowing the extent to which the legal person may be compensated for moral damage. Using the opinions of jurists and judicial and explanatory decisions, the researcher has found that moral damage has multiple forms, a research that arises from the act and assault carried out by the aggressor. As a result, it is not appropriate to limit moral damage to rigid legal texts based on what is stated in the legislation and decisions of the esteemed Court of Cassation, as the researcher recommends. The Jordanian legislator should include general provisions clarifying the civil liability of the legal person, and the researcher recommends a separate chapter in the civil law to talk about the moral damage and its multiple meanings and aspects and how to rule for compensation and claim it.
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 | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".