MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2327338010 · doi:10.5539/jpl.v9n2p154

The Investigation of Builders and Building Supervisors’ Responsibility in Iran Law

2016· article· en· W2327338010 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marjan Hossein Zadeh, Abdolmohammad Afrough

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Politics and Law · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicInsurance and Financial Risk Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislatorDamagesLiabilityCompensation (psychology)Plan (archaeology)LawAsideBusinessLegal liabilityPoint (geometry)Property (philosophy)Political scienceLegislationPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As a professional career, builders and building supervisors’ activities is accepted as an especial liability from legislator’s point of view and every especial liability has its own technical its bylaws, the building control engineering system and national building regulations were provided and ratified that are necessary for the sake of security and protection of the buildings and structures and they are essential as the most basic civil rights. With analysis of relevant laws and regulations we realize that builders and supervisors’ responsibility is assumed as building fault-based liability by the legislator and liability without fault is an exception of the fault principle and the injured party to claim compensation of loss does not need to prove fault, so the builders and supervisors must take utmost caution in this regard. But about how, when and who they can plan their complaints, aside from the client, third parties such as buyers, passengers, entrants to the construction site and owner’s adjacent can all sue against the above-mentioned persons and all of them are relatively liable for damages to life and property losses of injured persons.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.198
Threshold uncertainty score0.152

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Politics and LawSame topicInsurance and Financial Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207