Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to the principle of will power or will dominance and the principle of freedom to contract which have been manifested in the article number ten of the civil code the will power of individuals dominates the regulations of closing a contract and its after effects and the freedom of will power here has gained the acceptance as a principle. By closing a contract by two free wills that contract becomes binding and according to the binding principle or provision in contracts the sides of a contract will be committed to carry out the terms and content which is inserted in a contract unless it becomes terminated with by the volition of the sides of the contract themselves or due to a legal cause. Since according to the principle of freedom to contract its sides can shun from closing any contract which is an obvious violation of law, due to the same reason they can also take into consideration any condition or term which isn’t an obvious violation of law and according to the principle of binding ness of contracts the sides of them and their vicars are bound to execute the conditions which are stated in it. One of the conditions of contracts which can be considered is the condition of stipulation. In the present study in addition to scratch the surface on the subject of stipulation in contracts it is expected that the theoretical aspect of the essence of stipulation gets evident, the view point of Islamic jurisprudence and the legal proceedings become stated and the issue that stipulation is claimable under what conditions and in what manner. By carry out a comparative study we get aware of the views in several legal systems toward stipulation and also its position in the private international law and the latest changes in the domain of stipulation specifically ones which are presented at the international level.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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.
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".