The New Codes – Tradition and Modernity in the Post- Communism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The new Civil Code camed into force on October 1, replacing the old code dating from 1864, adopted during Prince Alexandru Ioan Cuza’s reign and largely inspired from the French 1804 civil code. The code introduces new elements concerning contracts between clients and banks, allowing the court to intervene in such contracts. The new Code also introduces two new legal institutions: engagement and the marriage contract, and brings modifications in fields such as respect for one’s private life, divorce or wills. We have to mention that, besides this reforms, the new Civil Code retains the traditional principles found in any code. The necessitz of renewal, as well as the chaoslike atmosphere caused by the legislative plethora encountered after 1989 led to drafting a new code. Founden on the Canadian model (Civil code of Quebec), the project adopted in 2009 take account of jurisprudential and doctrinal innovations, and reintroduce the material which were removed of the Code for the last 50 years. The recoding process is more complex as it is found in several European countries, and also at European Union legislation, especially in terms of contract law. In our scientific approach we try to analyze the traditional elements but also the modern elements found in the new coding act.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".