MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067799592 · doi:10.5539/jpl.v1n3p102

Enforceability of Database Licensing Agreement: A Comparatives Study Between Malaysia and the United States of America

2008· article· en· W2067799592 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nazura Abdul Manap

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Politics and Law · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCryptography and Data Security
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnconscionabilityLicenseeStatutory lawDatabaseLicenseBargaining powerBusinessDoctrineWaiverFreedom of contractAgreementLaw and economicsLawComputer scienceEconomicsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Licensing agreement is one of the mechanisms to secure the interest of database producers. A breach of any contractual term in the agreement will entitle a database producer to a contractual remedy. As regards to contractual protection, there are two important issues to be addressed. First, the clauses in the licensing agreement, and secondly, the issue of enforceability of certain database agreement, such as shrink wrap or click wrap license. The second issue must be resolved before a database producer is able to implement the terms and conditions provided in the database licensing agreement. This is because it determines the validity of the contract. With a valid contract, the contractual terms may be used to protect the interest of the database producers. The unconscionability of the terms in the database licensing seems to be a major issue. This issue arises due to the fact that the contractual terms are not read by licensee upon the conclusion of agreement and the inequality of bargaining power exists. Asymmetrical or unfair terms will cause unfairness to database users who will be prevented through the principle of undue influence or the common law doctrine of unconscionability. Although no clear statutory provision has provided a solution to the problem, there are two ways of dealing with it. First, the database producer must ensure that he does not use his dominant position to exercise unconscionable dealings. Secondly, it is advisable to incorporate a term providing that the buyer or user has the opportunity to reject the contract if he disagrees with the terms. To ensure the interest of the database producers the agreement should provide notice as to the database’s terms of usage. This may form the basis of a breach of contract in the event that the stipulated terms are violated. A good contractual agreement is an agreement which protects the interest of both parties; i.e., the database producers and the users. To achieve that, both parties should come to a mutual agreement on the terms in the contract. The license should incorporate necessary provisions such as restrictions on use to protect the legitimate interest of the database producer. However licensees should also be given sufficient freedom to use the database content to meet their legitimate needs and should be prohibited from using the information in ways that would diminish the value of the database producer’s investment in the database.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.180

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.256 · 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
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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Politics and LawSame topicCryptography and Data SecurityFrench-language works237,207