MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

THE ANTINOMIES OF THE IDEA OF LAW IN THE INSTITUTION OF THE VERSION SUIT

2022· article· en· W4389405088 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEx Jure · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal and Regulatory Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsInstitutionTeleologyIdeologyInterpretation (philosophy)LawOrder (exchange)State (computer science)SociologyEpistemologyPolitical scienceJudicial interpretationLaw and economicsPhilosophyComputer scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: the article deals with the formal, legal and substantive aspects of the concept of unjust enrichment, taking into account the formation of this institution in the domestic legal order, up to its current state, characterized by a gap in terms of version claims. There is a connection between the problem and the growing tendency in recent years to overcome the formal approach in judicial practice. It is shown that ethical elements prevail in the ideological content of the institution of the versions claim, which is currently not formally fixed, but is derived through a systematic and teleological judicial interpretation of the law. The possibility of using antinomies of the idea of law as a methodological tool for overcoming the gap in the regulation of situations corresponding to the classical model of actio de in rem verso is substantiated.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.900
Threshold uncertainty score0.653

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.240 · 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