MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974427809 · doi:10.1177/0964663913513218

<i>Caveat Emptor</i> Under Prudentialism

2013· article· en· W1974427809 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jon Frauley

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial & Legal Studies · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicRegulation and Compliance Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersIndustry Canada
KeywordsCaveat emptorContext (archaeology)BusinessDutyPoliticsConsumption (sociology)DisadvantageDoctrineService (business)Law and economicsLawMarketingEconomicsPolitical scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Residential home (that is, housing) inspection has been a growth industry in Canada and the United States since its emergence in the 1970s. Within a legal context where the purchase of used housing is governed by the doctrine of caveat emptor, and a political and economic context characterized by prudentialism, home inspection appears to offer a means by which consumers can discharge their legal and political duty to be prudent. However, in Canada, because home inspection is largely unregulated and market driven, consumers of pre-owned housing are placed at a structural disadvantage relative to home inspectors. This article argues that we should be cautious of embracing private residential home inspection as an adequate consumer protection mechanism or form of risk consulting because there are fundamental and irreconcilable differences between a public service that strives to meet the objective of the public good and home inspection as a private service offered for public consumption that strives to meet the objectives of private interests.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.041
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0060.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial & Legal StudiesSame topicRegulation and Compliance StudiesFrench-language works237,207