Rumuńskie prawo spadkowe między dwoma kodeksami cywilnymi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study represents a development of a previous paper given at the symposium "The Evolution of the Law of Succession in Central and Eastern Europe" organized by the "The Research Center for the Development of the European Law and the Reform of the Private Law" at the Vienna University Law School on 15-16 May 2008. Meanwhile, on 24 July 2009 Romania adopted a new Civil Code that has not, however, entered into force. The paper discusses the major aspects of the Romanian law of succession in both Codes (the old and the new one), on the background of comparative references to the principles of the French and Austrian civil laws. The comparison with the principles of the French law is justified by the fact that the 1865 Romanian Civil Code (still in force) was strongly influenced by the Code Napoléon, while the comparison with the Austrian Civil Code is justified by the fact that the Austrian Civil Code was before 1918 in force in many regions of Romania, either directly or by way of an imitation named the "Calimach Code". Along with the analysis of all those aspects of the Romanian law of succession, the author discusses whether the new Civil Code, heavily influenced by the Quebec Code, may contribute more than the old Code to the harmonization of the Romanian law of succession with the European Law.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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".