MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4243175927 · doi:10.1017/9781316104415

Obligations

2017· book· en· W4243175927 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Martin Hogg

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2017
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObligationLawPolitical scienceJurisdictionCLARITYStatuteCommon lawComparative lawPerspective (graphical)SociologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Obligations: Law and Language is the first work of its kind to examine in depth the fundamental language used by courts, legislators, and academic commentators when describing the nature of obligations law. A comparative perspective is taken, examining the law of England, Scotland, the United States, Canada, and Australia, and an in-depth analysis is provided of the major legal commentaries, statutes, and case law from each jurisdiction. In exploring such fundamental words as obligation, liability, debt, conditional, unilateral, mutual, and gratuitous, the author examines the often confusing and contradictory ways in which basic structural language has been used, and brings clarity to a core area of legal theory and practice.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.681
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicLegal principles and applicationsFrench-language works237,207