MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2564747207 · doi:10.5539/jpl.v10n1p188

Comparative Study of Bill of Lading Function as Title Document

2016· article· en· W2564747207 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Majid Reza Arab Ahmadi, Mostafa Elsan, Ibrahim Noshadi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Politics and Law · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicLaw, logistics, and international trade
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBill of ladingReceiptScope (computer science)CarriageBusinessFunction (biology)LawCommerceLaw and economicsEconomicsComputer scienceAccountingPolitical scienceEngineeringInternational trade

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the new transformations in the scope of maritime transportation about shipping documents includes non-paper (electronic) maritime transport documents. Three principal functions of a bill of lading in maritime transportation comprise receipt of carriage of good, reason for carriage contract, and title document. The majority of studies are about to realize the functions of carriage receipt and reason for carriage contract within substitution of electronic documents, such as replacement of paper bill of lading with an electronic bill of lading. While there is not the same conclusion about the function of the title document and this doubt on the result is beyond the replacement of paper documents with electronic documents caused by ambiguities in considering the bill of lading as a title document of goods and function of a bill of lading as a title document. In general, the transfer of a bill of lading does not mean the transfer of ownership while ownership is transferred through a contract of goods’ sale and bill of shading is considered as a document that indicates a property of goods to facilitate transactions within commercial operations.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.543
Threshold uncertainty score0.268

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Politics and LawSame topicLaw, logistics, and international tradeFrench-language works237,207