Why is there an international commercial uniform law rather than nothing? : a postmodern manifesto
Bibliographic record
Abstract
International uniform commercial law is like the realization of a global dream. It is currently an unavoidable reference point because of the flourishing legal scholarship that lends it confidence and breadth. Thus, certain people see the “Vienna Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods”, to cite only one example, as the cornerstone of the creation of an international private law. Others, working with the theory developed by T. Kuhn in “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, interpret it as a sign of the birth of a new paradigm underlying international commercial transactions. As well, A. Kassis affirms that it represents the germ of a future amalgamation of all sales laws, while V. Heuze speaks of it in terms of remarkable progress. Faced with such a strike force, I would like to revisit the intellectual act that will reintroduce into uniform law the mystery it has lost and to which it has a right, like other things in life. Thus, I came to ask myself, why is there a uniform international commercial law rather than nothing? This paraphrase of the fundamental metaphysical question formulated by M. Heidegger - "Why are there beings rather than nothing?" - underlies this entire thesis. It expresses the intrinsic though unacknowledged strangeness of uniform law, and, correlatively, the attitude of astonishment that one must adopt toward this juridical field. How am I going to follow-up on this? I would submit that one of the right answers to this question resides in the pursuit of two objectives. The first objective is the following: propose and justify the constitutive elements of a postmodern consciousness of uniform law. The second objective will develop two applications: one will consist in an interpretative schema of uniform law, and the other in a uniformist reading of the Quebec world.
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 | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.052 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".