MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2340757021 · doi:10.5539/jpl.v9n2p232

Study on English and French Law

2016· article· en· W2340757021 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shahram Aryan, Bagher Mirabbasi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Politics and Law · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicConflict of Laws and Jurisdiction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawHonestyStatuteBad faithPolitical scienceGood faithFaithFair dealingNegotiationSeriousnessTransparency (behavior)Law and economicsSociologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accepting the principle of good faith in the pre-contractual period entails certain consequences. Observing this principle would require that the parties cooperate and exchange information by exhibiting utmost honesty, transparency, and seriousness in their preliminary talks towards achieving their mutual goals; and that each party, while respecting the information confidentiality of the other party and refusing to enter into parallel negotiations, shall respect the other party’s interests. The principle of good faith is not explicitly recognized as a general rule in Iran’s statutes. Although the necessity of observing the principle of good faith in all laws and obligations in all instances including the pre-contractual period can be proved using the principle of induction from the criteria stipulated in Article 8, Iran’s Law of Civil Liability (i.e., Law of Torts) as well as other current Iranian regulations, this method would not convince the legal Iranian community to accept the principle of good faith as a general rule. Therefore, social and economic imperatives would necessitate that the principle of good faith should be recognized explicitly in the Iranian statutes.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.183

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Politics and LawSame topicConflict of Laws and JurisdictionFrench-language works237,207