Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1978, the Supreme Court in Andrews imposed a ceiling of $100 000 on compensation for the bodily non-pecuniary injury. In contrast, the Supreme Court in Snyder (1998) and Hill (1995) had decided that the ceiling of Andrews does not apply to actions in defamation and moral non-pecuniary damages. Today, this situation still appears to be unjust. How is moral suffering so different from the bodily suffering? This thesis starts from this unfairness to explore the components of the law of compensation for suffering, namely, the ceiling of Andrews, the justifications of the right to be repaired, the methods of assessment of the indemnities, and the intuitions and perceptions we have of suffering. It aims to determine how the law could better understand suffering and compensate it more adequately and fairly. The law suffers from confusion, which can be observed in the coexistence of the approaches, the problems that each approach raises and the contradictions that the debate on the cap raises. The consequence of this confusion is the lack of uniformity and consistency in the law of compensation for suffering. The legal reasoning is caught between conflicting arguments and approaches among which logic is incapable to choose. As a result, the decision of judges is the product not of logic, but of intuitions rarely brought to consciousness. These intuitions generally concern the issue of the incommensurability of suffering and the value we place on bodily suffering. First, a better comprehension of the choices of incommensurability and commensurability permits us to identify a method of assessment of indemnities which is fair, consistent and predictable: I have called this method the "personalized-conceptual approach with functional reasonableness". Moreover, a better understanding of bodily suffering, by an interdisciplinary study of law and horror films, permits us to conclude that the interest we attach to bodily suffering militates in favor of the application of a single cap on all non-pecuniary damages. The analysis of these two intuitions can generally cure the confusion in the law of compensation for suffering. The law suffers, but it can be cured.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.074 | 0.018 |
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".