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
There has been an ongoing debate in common law countries about the merits of recognising a general obligation to act in good faith in the performance of contracts. Courts in England, Australia, Canada and Singapore have responded differently to this possibility. However, courts in those jurisdictions have been prepared to imply a similar bundle of more specific duties that are increasingly seen as expressing the core content of any general principle of good faith in contract law. The ‘good faith’ duties promote loyalty or fidelity to the contractual relationship, primarily by requiring honesty and cooperation in contract performance and by precluding the exercise of discretionary contractual powers in a manner that is unreasonable or outside the proper purposes of the power. The presence of these duties in the relatively stable and commercially orientated contract law of the jurisdictions considered suggests that ideas of good faith need not produce undue uncertainty for contracting parties. On the other hand, the increasingly well-established operation of these more specific duties raises the question of what would be gained through recognising a general obligation of good faith performance in the common law 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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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