Bibliographic record
Abstract
The interplay of the applicability and enforceability of an arbitration clause in the context of a fraudulent mispresentation claim was recently considered by the Quebec Superior Court in Sonox Sia c. Albury Grain Sales Inc. Regrettably, as is so often the case in Canadian jurisprudence, the Quebec Superior court failed to refer to any CISG caselaw or scholarly commentary on the defendant's motion challenging jurisdiction. Specifically, the court failed to refer to the impact of the allegation of fraud vis-a-vis the validity exclusion under Article 4(a) of the CISG. Relying on the strict wording of the arbitration clause is less than satisfactory in international sales contract cases, particularly since fraudulent misrepresentations are rarely within the reasonable expectation of the parties when entering into a contract. Whether or not the fraud vitiated the contract was an issue deferred to the arbitrator. Nevertheless, the Sonox decision is noteworthy on the scope and applicability of arbitration clauses for international sale of goods contracts where the CISG is designated as the choice of law by the contracting parties.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
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".