MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Chapter 7. Drafting an Irish Frustrated Contracts Act: Lessons from British Columbia

2007· book-chapter· en· W1600469486 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cliona Kelly

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean and International Contract Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRestitutionNova scotiaLawEnglish lawSection (typography)IrishCommon lawLegislationPolitical scienceReform ActApportionmentState (computer science)BusinessHistoryArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The British Columbia Frustrated Contracts Act is different to the English Law Reform Act 1943. In 1948, the Conference of Commissioners on Uniformity of Legislation in Canada adopted the English Frustrated Contracts Act 1943, with some minor modifications, as a model Act. The 1948 Uniform Frustrated Contracts Act was subsequently adopted in every common law Canadian state except British Columbia, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan. Section 5 of the British Columbia Act is probably the most important part of the Act, as it provides for the adjustment of the rights and liabilities. The method of restitution contemplated by section 5(2), with the wide definition of a 'benefit' in section 5(1), is fairly straightforward. An example of such a straightforward application of the Act can be seen in KBK No. 138 Ventures Ltd. v. Canada Safeway Ltd. Section 5(4) of the British Columbia Act provides for the apportionment of certain losses incurred. Keywords: British Columbia Frustrated Contracts Act; Canadian state; common law; English Law Reform Act 1943; restitution

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.445

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0110.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEuropean and International Contract LawFrench-language works237,207