MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The jus commune Doctrine and the Formation of Public Law Institutions

2023· article· en· W4384704142 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueTheoretical and Applied Law · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicClassical Studies and Legal History
Canadian institutionsInnovation Cluster (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDoctrineLawPublic lawLegal doctrinePolitical sciencePrivate lawCivil law (Civil law)Legal historyComparative lawLegal realismSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article considers the role of the jus commune doctrine in the process of formation of institutions of public law in the period 11th-17th century as a functionally organised construction of legal reality. The research is based on the communicative methodology of law and, on the grounds of the historical and legal facts, shows how the functions of the doctrine were manifested when jus commune influenced the medieval legal reality. It concludes that the jus commune doctrine, based on the axiomatic method, by interpreting the texts of Roman and canon law, filling legal gaps and eliminating contradictions in customary, canonical and positive law, made a significant contribution to the construction of the public law segment of legal reality — the institutions of public 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.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0020.011
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.193 · 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