MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6922015604 · doi:10.11575/prism/33977

Aunt Laura’s Promise

2009· other· en· W6922015604 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePRISM (University of Calgary) · 2009
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicDiverse Scientific and Economic Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAuntGeorge (robot)Nephew and nieceNothingUndoingPaymentReincarnationPossession (linguistics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This story is about a generous aunt, Laura Constantineau Brunet, who orally promised one of her Ottawa houses to her 20-year-old nephew George Constantineau in return for him agreeing to do some errands for her. George readily agreed to that bargain. So, while attending a technical school for 6 months in 1934.35, he lived with Aunt Laura at 550 Besserer Street in Ottawa, who owned both that house and the adjoining 548. They agreed that if George was good to her and if he did some chores for her, she would leave him the land with house next door, at 548. For George to win, he would have to show that doing those errands clearly referred to the sale of the house next door. But young nephews do errands for aunts who they are residing with for six months for several reasons. The errands could be payment for room and board while he was at school. George might be a kind nephew merely helping out his aunt. An objective bystander, knowing nothing of the promises, would not likely conclude that the only explanation for George helping Aunt Laura was that George was getting the other house. His errands were not clearly, nor of their own nature, referable to any dealing with 548 Besserer Street. George did not leave the courthouse empty-handed. Although he could not plainly demonstrate he had a deal for the house, the Supreme Court of Canada thought he should be paid for the errands he performed at the aunt's request, an equitable remedy known as quantum meruit. The Supreme Court said Aunt Laura would have been unjustly enriched by George if she did not pay something for those errands. She would have had to pay for his services if she hired anyone else to perform them. Supreme Court fixed these few errands as worth an extraordinarily high $500 per month (a total of $3,000) in 1954. Aunt Laura's estate was also ordered to pay all of George's legal bills.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.119

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0150.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0040.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0360.009

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.168
Teacher spread0.149 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePRISM (University of Calgary)Same topicDiverse Scientific and Economic StudiesFrench-language works237,207