MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2255784296

상품권거래와 법제개선방안 연구

2012· article· ko· W2255784296 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
김성천, 전대표

Bibliographic record

Venue정책연구보고서 · 2012
Typearticle
Languageko
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicConflict of Laws and Jurisdiction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessStatuteLegislationLawPaymentCertificateLegislatureFinancePolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This report studies the problems and legislation improvement of Gift Certificate Laws. Gift certificate means a record evidencing a promise, made for monetary consideration, by the seller or issuer for the record that goods or services will be provided to the owner of the record to the value shown in the record. Governments should regulate gift certificate through laws. The typical laws on gift certificate are Framework Act on Consumers, Civil Act, Regulation of Standardized Contract Act, Electronic Financial Contract Act and so on. As federal statutes in US, Congress passed the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure (CARD) Act 2009, which set consumer protections for gift cards based on many state laws. The law provides that gift cards cannot expire within five years from the date they were activated and generally limits inactivity fee on gift cards except in certain circumstances, such as if there has been no transaction for at least 12 months. The federal law creates a floor for regulation and leaves room for state regulation on redeeming gift cards for cash and unclaimed property provisions. In Canada, rules regulating the sale of gift cards and prepaid cards already exist in many other Canadian provinces. On June 24, 2009, the Payment Services Act of Japan (Act No. 59 of 2009) (the “PSA”) was promulgated. The PCA is currently applicable to pre-payment services where certain values including electronic moneys are recorded on certificates. This report intended to present a suitable alternative for the present laws with the normative analysis, the legislative analysis on the gift certificate laws. The object of this report proposes alternatives about the improvement legislation of gift certificate laws with performing the retrospective evaluation in gift certificate laws. I hope that these alternatives will be utilized as the useful legislative study to enacting gift certificate laws in the future. Finally, this report proposes the Legislation on Prepaid Payment Instrument to harmonize those parts of gift certificate laws.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.171

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0510.022

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue정책연구보고서Same topicConflict of Laws and JurisdictionFrench-language works237,207