RATS IN THE KALEIDOSCOPE: RATIONALITY, IRRATIONALITY, AND THE ECONOMICS AND PSYCHOLOGY OF OPTING IN AND OUT OF THE CISG (KALEIDOSCOPE PART II)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Why do lawyers in some jurisdictions continue to ‘automatically’ exclude the 1980 UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) in their choices of law for international sales contracts. Why do lawyers in other jurisdictions approach the decision very differently?This paper identifies the key reasons for opting in or out of the CISG across various jurisdictions, and then turns to economics and psychology in order to expose the underlying causes for choices of law for international sales contracts. A number of perspectives are utilized within this analysis: from neoclassical economics, including agency costs, externalities and rational decision making within game theory frameworks; behavioral economics, including notions of path dependence, satisficing and network effects; to psychological perspectives including heuristics and group polarization. The breadth of this approach provides new insight into the reasons for choices of law, and enables a thorough analysis of current and future trends in exclusion of the CISG. The author concludes that choices of law in jurisdictions that presently overwhelmingly favor ‘automatic’ exclusion of the CISG will inevitably change.This paper (Kaleidoscope Part II) was presented at the first MAA Conference in honor of Peter Schlechtriem (1933-2007) in Vienna on 2 April 2009. A revised version was also presented at the Canadian Law & Economics Annual Meeting on 3 October 2009 (under the title Green Eggs & Ham). In Kaleidoscope Part I (also available on SSRN), the author utilizes empirical and anecdotal evidence to identify the primary factors behind decisions on choice of law which are explained in terms of behavioral economics, game theory and psychology in Part II. This article is published at 13 Vindobona Journal of International Commercial Law & Arbitration 157 (2009) and is reproduced with the kind permission of the Moot Alumni Association.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".