MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1500014366

Party Autonomy, Private Autonomy, and Freedom of Contract

2014· article· en· W1500014366 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Meng Zhaohua

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian social science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutonomyFreedom of contractLaw and economicsScope (computer science)Context (archaeology)LawConstraint (computer-aided design)Political scienceEconomicsBusinessComputer scienceMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Party Autonomy, Private Autonomy, and Freedom of Contract are misused concepts in the private law area. Indeed, there are a lot of connections among the three concepts; however, it does not mean that they can be used alternatively under any circumstances. After etymology research and semantic analysis, it can be found that the core of the three concepts is autonomy but the application scope and the emphases of the context of each concept are different in certain degree: Party autonomy emphasizes the respect of personal rights, private autonomy is opposed to the constraint and or restriction of public law, and the freedom of contract is an extension of the idea of equality and utility with the situation that commodity economy fully developed. In the applicable area of international private law, the following conclusion can be made: Private autonomy equals to party autonomy, and party autonomy includes freedom of contract.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.041
Scholarly communication0.0080.010
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian social scienceSame topicLegal principles and applicationsFrench-language works237,207