MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4288672172 · doi:10.21134/lex.vi.592

EL RÉGIMEN DE ALEGACIÓN Y PRUEBA DEL DERECHO EXTRANJERO EN ESPAÑA, A PROPÓSITO DE LA SENTENCIA DE LA AUDIENCIA PROVINCIAL DE MÁLAGA Nº 3/2019 DE 8 DE ENERO

2019· article· es· W4288672172 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueREVISTA LEX MERCATORIA Doctrina Praxis Jurisprudencia y Legislación · 2019
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHuman Rights and Immigration
Canadian institutionsOptech (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

El art. 281.2 LEC obliga a alegar y probar el derecho extranjero en su contenido y vigencia permitiendo al tribunal valerse de los medios de averiguación que estime necesarios para su aplicación. Es a la parte que lo invoque a quien corresponde demostrar el contenido y la vigencia, de modo que, una vez justificados esos dos extremos, dependerá del Juez la aplicación; así lo afirma la AP Málaga en su Sentencia 3/2019, de 8 de enero al señalar que, al no acreditarse el Derecho extranjero reclamado en una sucesión, procede resolver la cuestión debatida conforme a las normas del ordenamiento jurídico español.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.722
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.307 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueREVISTA LEX MERCATORIA Doctrina Praxis Jurisprudencia y LegislaciónSame topicHuman Rights and ImmigrationFrench-language works237,207