MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2308008195 · doi:10.5539/ass.v12n4p45

Current Laws Governing Franchise Agreement in Jordan

2016· article· en· W2308008195 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohammad Saud Khasawneh, Nurli Yaacob, Rohana Abdul Rahman

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFranchising Strategies and Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFranchiseLegislationLicenseBusinessProduct (mathematics)Foreign direct investmentLaw and economicsEconomicsLawMarketingPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Currently there are more than 150 local and international franchise businesses operating in Jordan. Franchise business in Jordan has been a crucial investment market contributing to the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and developing its economic growth and trade. Nevertheless, legal challenges to the investors which have existed may hinder them from opening up a franchise business in Jordan. One of these challenges is the lack of specific legal framework regulating franchise business. Jordanian legal system does not have specific legislation to regulate the franchise agreement (which is known as the “license agreement” in Jordan) between a franchisor and a franchisee. The lack of specific legislation may deter or at least slow down the progress of foreign and local investors in setting up franchise businesses in Jordan, as they could not reasonably anticipate the relevant laws and regulatory enforcements relating to franchise. Therefore, this paper examines the current laws and regulations governing franchise business in Jordan. The paper concludes that existing laws affecting franchise in Jordan fail to address comprehensively the legal aspects of franchise. Thus, there is a dire need for specific legal framework to govern franchise business in Jordan.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.004

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicFranchising Strategies and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207