MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W196227682

Contract formation: a comparative perspective on the Model Law of Electronic Commerce

2002· article· en· W196227682 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tana Pistorius

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicLaw, logistics, and international trade
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReceiptLegislatureScope (computer science)The InternetNorm (philosophy)BusinessLawLaw and economicsPolitical scienceElectronic signatureInteroperabilityEconomicsComputer scienceAccounting
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Internet is decentralised and self-regulatory. The use of modern means of communication, such as electronic mail, for the conduct of international trade transactions has been increasing rapidly and this trend is expected to continue in future. The exponential increase in international e-trade increases the need for legal recognition that the use of and reliance on electronic messages are valid and enforceable. This article examines firstly the background to the Model Law (ML) with reference to its objectives, scope, structure and approach. Reference is made to the basic provisions which seek to give legal recognition to on-line contracting. Core definitions from Chapter I of the ML and the articles of Chapter III that deal with the legal recognition of the formation and validity of contracts concluded electronically, and the time and place of dispatch and receipt of data messages are discussed. Thereafter, the extent to which these 'provisions have become the international norm is reviewed. The recent legislative reforms in the United States, Australia and Canada to accommodate developments in electronic contracting are discussed. Lastly, the approach followed in the South African Electronic Communications and Transactions Bill is considered.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score0.856

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLaw, logistics, and international tradeFrench-language works237,207