MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966777676 · doi:10.1108/14725960510808536

Facilities management outsourcing in the UK: Avoiding ’elephant traps‘ in the legal jungle

2005· article· en· W1966777676 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Facilities Management · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFacilities and Workplace Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutsourcingNegotiationBusinessEuropean unionRisk managementLegal riskJungleFinanceMarketingInternational tradeLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The UK has in recent years seen considerable growth of facilities management (FM) outsourcing across a range of industries. This paper considers the legal problems and risks inherent in FM outsourcing. It also suggests ways to facilitate the transactional negotiating process and discusses the methods by which business and legal risks can be fairly apportioned (between the user and the provider), how to ensure good contract management and, importantly, managing risks on contract termination and exit. The paper is relevant to both users and providers in terms of best negotiating practice and risk management. From a legal perspective, both the UK (and the European Union) are more highly regulated jurisdictions for FM deals than are the US and Canadian markets, and this paper focuses on UK (and European) issues. Cross‐border legal issues are also 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.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.325
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.250 · 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