Próba porównania niektórych elementów instytucji przyczynienia się poszkodowanego w deliktowej odpowiedzialności za szkody na osobie w prawie polskim i w systemie common law / Attempt at a Comparative Analysis of Certain Elements of Contributory Negligence of the Injured in Tortious Liability for Personal Injury Under the Polish Law and in the Common Law System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article provides a comparative analysis of the approaches related to contributory negligence of the injured causing the occurrence or aggravation of the injury in the Polish law and in the common law system. The article discusses the development of this institution, differences and similarities with special emphasis on the latter as peculiar to the systems that evolved from such distant sources as well as rules according to which the occurrence and degree of contribution is established. The basis for deliberations is the legislation of England and Wales under which this institution developed, from a chronological perspective, for the first time. However, certain American, Canadian and Australian approaches have also been discussed against this background. The article addresses important issues, though rarely debated in the Polish legal literature, and constitutes an important source of knowledge for legal scholars providing professional insights and prompting both axiological and purely practical deliberations. em Key words: tortious liability, personal injury, comparative negligence, contributory negligence, the common law system
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".