MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reciprocal Freedom

2022· book· en· W4306863431 on OpenAlexaff
Ernest J. Weinrib

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrivate lawPublic lawComparative lawLawPolitical sciencePhilosophy of lawCivil law (Civil law)Commercial lawMunicipal lawLaw and economicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This book continues a decades-long exploration of the theory of private law. Two previous books, The Idea of Private Law and Corrective Justice had presented, respectively, the theory of corrective justice and the analysis of a wide range of specific issues in private law. The present book starts with corrective justice as the structure of the private law relationship and gradually moves outward to situate private law within the wider world of law, dealing with the state’s role in forwarding distributive justice, the horizontal application of constitutional rights to private law, and the rule of law. The book draws on Kant’s legal philosophy to exhibit law, both private and public, as the necessary medium for the reciprocal freedom of all. Central to this enterprise is what Kant called ‘public right’, with its system of public institutions. Throughout these books, four ideas about private law have consistently been in play: (1) fair and coherent reasons for liability are correlative in structure; (2) rights and their correlative obligations provide the content for this structure; (3) the activity of theorizing about private law involves not the construction of a utopia but the understanding of an ongoing normative practice; and (4) a theory of private law is concerned not with producing a determinate code of law, but with explicating the conceptual structure and normative presuppositions of the phenomenon of liability.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.573
Threshold uncertainty score0.977

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLegal principles and applicationsFrench-language works237,207