MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Contracts and Contracting

2015· other· en· W1535503060 on OpenAlexaff
Richard Bronaugh

Bibliographic record

VenueWiley Encyclopedia of Management · 2015
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnconscionabilityDamagesBreach of contractBargaining powerOrder (exchange)Frustration of purposeLaw and economicsBusinessPrivity of contractSeverabilityExclusion clausePower (physics)Contract managementLawEconomicsPolitical scienceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The civil wrong identified by the common law of contract is the existence of a broken promise thus contract is rooted in a moral concept. To be binding, the act of promising must be made without fraud or force; unconscionability of terms based on an imbalance of bargaining power may invalidate a contract. Also there must be consideration extended from the promisee thus it is not promise of a gift. Though a contract is said to show parties “in agreement”, “an agreement” can be found on objective grounds. Relief in contract is normally money damages not an order of performance.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.560

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWiley Encyclopedia of ManagementSame topicLegal principles and applicationsFrench-language works237,207