Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article provides an overview of damages under the United Nation Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (“CISG”) and compares how they differ from what might be typical under Canadian provincial sale of goods law. CISG Article 74 establishes the basic principles concerning recovery and the calculation of damages, and it reflects the general principle of full compensation (not unlike the Supreme Court’s “actual loss”). In contrast with the common law system, which requires that a loss be contemplated by both parties, the CISG makes it clear that it is foreseeability of the breaching party that is of legal significance. In addition, the CISG’s foreseeability test is both subjective and objective: the party may be held liable not only for losses which it actually foresaw, but also for losses which it “ought to have foreseen.” Thus, to make a party liable, it is not necessary to prove that the party actually foresaw the loss in question, as long as it was in a position to reasonably foresee the loss.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".