Civil Liability in a Mixed Jurisdiction: Quebec and the Network of Ratio Communis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A. Comparative Law and the 'Better Law' According to Zweigert and Kötz, all comparative research must be followed by a critical evaluation involving the decision of which possible solution is the most suitable and just 1 or, as Rheinstein asks, whether the norm in question serves its purpose adequately or is another norm a better fit for society's expectations.2 Finding the best solution, whatever that means, seems to be an inseparable part of comparative law 3 because "all legal systems share the common goal of finding and applying the best and most just legal rules".4 Some comparatists have tended to find a better law in the 'nature of the thing' (Natur der Sache), stating that comparative law can lead one to universal, common principles, i.e., to inherently correct solutions or 'ideal types' of law. 5 Some authors prefer an economic approach in finding a better law.The movement of law and economics seeks an efficient law that maximizes economic welfare.6 Magnus points out the economic context 1.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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 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".