The (Un)intended Consequences of Legal Transplants: A Comparative Study of Standing in Collective Litigation in Five Jurisdictions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Deborah R. Hensler has long championed the comparative study of civil procedure in a way that considers the interplay between legal rules, redress mechanisms, legal institutions and the societies where they operate. More importantly, this approach has also revealed the intended and unintended consequences of legal transplantation, and illuminated the difference between the law in the books and the law in action. As Professor Hensler recently and succinctly wrote, “procedures that seem on the surface to be the same or very similar may in practice operate differently as they intersect with other aspects of the litigation regime – rules, cultural expectations, political contexts – in which they are inserted.” In a multi-year book project she led almost a decade ago, Hensler and her colleagues identified the cultural, economic and political forces that impact how a single procedural device – representative litigation – operates in any given jurisdiction. The studies that comprised the project were grounded in empirical data obtained through several research strategies, specially the case study method. National jurisdictions or specific cases within those jurisdictions were used as units of analysis, and as a basis for a broader cross-country comparison that helped identify points of convergence and also key differences.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".