MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416405680 · doi:10.36151/rcdi.2025.807.10

Repudiación de la herencia e imputación de donaciones

2025· article· W4416405680 on OpenAlex
María Isabel de la Iglesia Monje

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 crítica de derecho inmobiliario/Revista crítica de derecho inmobiliario · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFamily and Matrimonial Law
Canadian institutionsOptech (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFunction (biology)Value (mathematics)Order (exchange)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La cláusula de repudiación de la herencia se entiende referida a que la repudiación comporta la imputación de la donación a la parte libre porque el repudiante no llega a ser legitimario. Frente a la creencia mantenida por los repudiantes de que el valor de lo donado debe imputarse a la legítima. Y ello, porque la repudiación significa la voluntad de no heredar, pero no afecta a la cualidad de legitimario, que ha recibido la donación como legítima. Los instituidos herederos que han repudiado la herencia, al renunciar a todos sus derechos en la herencia, no pueden ser tomados en consideración como legitimarios y el valor de la donación debe imputarse al tercio libre. Además, conforme al art. 1036 CC, la colación no tendrá lugar entre los herederos forzosos «si el donatario repudiare la herencia, salvo el caso en que la donación deba reducirse por inoficiosa», y esto es lo que precisamente sucede en el caso objeto de análisis.

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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.821
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.007
Science and technology studies0.0050.007
Scholarly communication0.0080.002
Open science0.0060.002
Research integrity0.0060.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.315 · 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