Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is a pleasure to comment on Professor Grammond's interesting, informative, and suggestive paper.The same tensions that he identifies in Quebec law can be discerned also in Anglo-Canadian law: putting the matter in the most general terms, the idea of sanctity of contract has been balanced against the desire of courts to avoid enforcement of contracts that have been perceived as very unfair.Perspectives on this question have varied markedly over time, and different solutions have been devised for different problems, producing, in common law fashion, what may more readily be called a patchwork than a mosaic.Professor Grammond's paper concentrates on the avoidance of "abusive or unconscionable" clauses.One word in Professor Gramn1ond's title is associated, in its origins, with French law; the other with English equity.To put this question into context from the perspective of Anglo-Canadian law it is necessary to examine briefly the jurisdiction, originally exercised by the courts of equity to set aside unconscionable transactions, to examine 19th-century attitudes in relation to the equitable jurisdiction, and then to examine the rather convoluted history in the 20th century of the treatment of clauses limiting or excluding liability, variously known as exemption clauses, exclusion clauses or disclaimer clauses.Since comparison between different legal systems is relevant, reference will be made to a recent European harmonization docun1ent, Principles, Definitions and Model Rules of European Private Law: Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR).This useful document, published in six volumes in 2009 with commentary and notes, supplies an accessible comparison of all the continental European systems with each other and with English and Irish law in respect of each particular proposed rule of contract law, and is therefore of particular interest to a comparison Universil.
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 | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".