MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2194271303

The Colour of E-consent

2005· article· en· W2194271303 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicDispute Resolution and Class Actions
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreceptCore (optical fiber)Expression (computer science)Internet privacyComputer scienceLawEpistemologyLaw and economicsPolitical scienceSociologyPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Consent, a well-known legal precept, can be considered one of the pillars of contract law, if not its core concept. Yet, within this broad notion, certain new issues associated with the emergence of electronic communications seem to arise. Questions regarding the nature of offer and acceptance, the place where the contract is formed, and the question of whether one's will can be expressed in an automated manner, among others, should be addressed. I have chosen to concentrate here on two questions that seem to have received little attention. Part 1 discusses the different ways we read electronic and paper documents, while Part 2 focuses on the way we manifest intent. The paper provides a brief outline of the distinctive features of electronic transactions and sets out the features of the expression of online consent, as well as the manner in which it is given.

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)0.001
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 score0.942
Threshold uncertainty score0.295

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.222 · 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