Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to examine whether the fraud exception rule in documentary credit applies to the applicant or the third party, or not, though the statutory provisions and cases. The proper and reasonable interpretation of statutory provisions including UCC and UNCITRAL Convention is that the fraud rule is applicable if documents are forged or fraudulent, no matter who is responsible for them. However the typical case of United City Merchants v. Royal Bank of Canada has taken a different view. The courts (with the exception of English Court of Appeal) have hold that the fraud rule should not apply when the fraudulent party is the applicant or a third party other than the beneficiary. These decisions might damage the fundamental principle governing the application of the fraud rule. Thus this author insists that the determing factor in the application of the fraud rule is not the identity of the fraudulent party but the nature of the documents. No matter who commits the fraud, the fraud rule should be applied if the documents are forged or fraudulent.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".