MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2228481979

El acuerdo de arbitraje como clausula abusiva en los contratos de consumo (The Arbitration Agreement as Abusive Clause in Consumer Contracts)

2014· article· es· W2228481979 on OpenAlex
Rodrigo R. Bordachar

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 · 2014
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicDispute Resolution and Class Actions
Canadian institutionsOptech (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConsumer lawArbitrationHumanitiesConsumer protectionPolitical scienceWelfare economicsBusinessEconomicsLaw and economicsLawPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spanish Abstract: La legislacion de proteccion del consumidor busca balancear los roles entre consumidores y proveedores. En estas relaciones de consumo el proveedor tiene el poder de imponer las las clausulas contractuales. Los acuerdos de arbitrajes son aceptados en los contratos de consumo e algunos Estados, pero en otros, estan fuertemente regulados, al considerarseles como clausulas abusivas.English Abstract: The consumer protection law aims to balance the roles between consumers and suppliers, who theoretically has greater power regarding the terms of contracts. Arbitration clauses in consumer contracts are allowed in some States, but in others they are strongly regulated, as they are considered as abusive clauses.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.737
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.242 · 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