MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416405095 · doi:10.36151/rcdi.2025.808.11

Accidente en la estación de esquí: responsabilidad contractual o extracontractual

2025· article· W4416405095 on OpenAlexaff
Elena Fernández de la Iglesia

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista crítica de derecho inmobiliario/Revista crítica de derecho inmobiliario · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicComparative International Legal Studies
Canadian institutionsOptech (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPower (physics)Context (archaeology)ObligationPublic policy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Como consecuencia del accidente producido en fecha 18 de enero de 2025 en la estación de esquí de Astún, nos planteamos la delimitación de la responsabilidad civil en la práctica de este deporte para poder determinar si es contractual o extracontractual. Atendiendo a la normativa y la doctrina, será contrato lo expresamente pactado y en su marco operará la responsabilidad contractual siempre que el hecho originador de la misma se produzca en los términos de lo pactado en el contrato aunque genera dudas en estos supuestos ya que se entiende que existe responsabilidad extracontractual cuando el daño sea producido por incumplimiento de deberes generales de conducta, independientemente de las obligaciones que existieran entre las partes, como consecuencia de ello, hemos debido analizar los elementos de la responsabilidad civil. En principio, según los elementos estudiados, entendemos que en este caso estaríamos ante un supuesto de responsabilidad civil contractual, aunque lo analizamos detenidamente al entender que la línea entre ambos tipos de responsabilidades es muy fina, debiendo valorar si cabe reclamación de responsabilidad por daños y la indemnización de los mismos.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.148

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.002

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.339 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista crítica de derecho inmobiliario/Revista crítica de derecho inmobiliarioSame topicComparative International Legal StudiesFrench-language works237,207