MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412633547 · doi:10.5944/rduned.35.2025.45885

Relación entre la restitución derivada de la nulidad contractual y el enriquecimiento injusto

2025· article· es· W4412633547 on OpenAlex
Ariadna Villamil Pérez

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

VenueRevista de Derecho de la UNED (RDUNED) · 2025
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicComparative International Legal Studies
Canadian institutionsOptech (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.862
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.359 · 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