Unification of Private Law in Europe and ‘Mixed Jurisdictions’: A Model for Civil Codes in Central Europe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper discusses new research questions that hybridization of continental private law yields for comparative private law. In this context the mixed legal systems and especially the Quebec law will be debated in their possible tool-function to assist Europe in coping with recent developments in private law. Two central driving forces on the European regulatory policy landscape are in the focus of the research: i) the regulatory competition among mixed jurisdictions (Scott Law v. Quebec Law) as sources of inspiration for the new Civil Codes of the Member States and the academic projects on unification of private law (DCFR), a process which demands for reconsideration of the relation between the top down unification v. bottom up hybridization and, ii) the regulatory competition between the European regulatory policy and globalization of private law in the Member States under international uniform transaction law.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".