MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283362649 · doi:10.53024/6.1.45.2022

Wprowadzenie do zagadnienia deliktowej odpowiedzialność za szkody na osobie w systemie common law, ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem Anglii i Walii

2022· article· en· W4283362649 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tomasz Strugalski

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Malpractice and Liability Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDutyLiabilityDuty of careLegislationLawCommon lawPersonal injuryPolitical scienceLegal liabilityCausationInstitutionTort

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article discusses the foundations of tortious liability for personal injury in the common law system, the conditions for establishing such liability, methods of discharge from such liability and how differently these issues are treated in various common law countries. Further, the article explains the essential elements of liability: duty of care, breach of this duty which causes someone’s injury and causation that is a direct causal relationship between breach of duty and injury. The legislation of England and Wales under which this institution developed was taken as a basis for deliberations. However, against this background some American, Canadian and Australian approaches were also discussed. The article concerns important issues, though rarely debated in the Polish legal literature, and constitutes an important piece of knowledge for a legal scholar providing professional insights and prompting both axiological and purely practical deliberations

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.019
Scholarly communication0.0150.011
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.357 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMedical Malpractice and Liability IssuesFrench-language works237,207