Relación entre la restitución derivada de la nulidad contractual y el enriquecimiento injusto
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Siendo el enriquecimiento injusto una figura jurídica no regulada, expresamente, en el Código Civil, conviene hacer un estudio sobre su aplicabilidad, sobre todo, a la luz de los ingentes asuntos de Derecho bancario, que sitúan al consumidor en una posición de vulnerabilidad y, en muchas ocasiones, de empobrecimiento frente a las entidades financieras. A pesar de que el artículo 1.303 del Código Civil supone un remedio para paliar los efectos de la nulidad contractual, no es menos cierto, que su aplicación no ha logrado instituir el principio de reparación del daño económico causado y es, en ese escenario, en el que se sitúa el enriquecimiento injusto. Sentencias como la del Tribunal Supremo, de 9 de mayo de 2013, evidencian la necesidad de dotar a la acción de enriquecimiento injusto de mayor autonomía –abandonando su subsidiariedad– y la urgencia de establecer una regulación específica, en nuestro ordenamiento.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".