The law civil and maritime: Quebec admiralty courts and the development of «in rem» procedure
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Law Civil and Maritime: Quebec Admiralty Courts and the Development of in rem Procedure explores the development of the admiralty action in rem during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, through a study of original archival resources from the courts of admiralty in Quebec and in London, many of which have never before been studied. The admiralty courts of Quebec include Canada's first permanent admiralty court set up by the French, as well as a vice-admiralty court established by the English. Both courts would turn out to be the leading admiralty courts of their regime. That in rem process was developed by civilians is undisputed. However, the present enquiry traces the origins of the remedy through a study of Roman law, of continental civil and customary law and of French and English maritime law, all of which converge in the admiralty courts of Quebec City. The study of original court records in Quebec and in London illustrates the importance of in rem process, and helps solve the enigma of the true role of in personam process in admiralty. As shall be demonstrated, the only true admiralty remedy with links to the past is the admiralty action in rem.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it