Bibliographic record
Abstract
Open contracts are agreement whereby parties of the contract can insert terms and conditions in the contract, delete them, or revise them. Some contracts for the supply of goods or construction are examples of such contracts. One party (usually a contractor or seller) can have many initiatives by increasing and decreasing the price or by changing elements of the contract. Certainly, there are many reasons, motives, and important goals in creating this type of conventions and its acceptance by the legal community. Discovery of these reasons and the goals leads to fundamental changes and definition of this type of contract could be a major driver of reform in Iranian contract laws, as Iranian community prefers to use example or pre-specified forms of contracts. Therefore, referring to the Principles of European Contract Law and implementation of the legal provisions, legal doctrines, and jurisprudence, presentation of new concepts such as open contract as well as analysis of its nature, validity, and effects leads to establishment of grounds for accepting new contractual frameworks and its localization of contractual rights in Iran because it has been rejected due to traditional perspectives. It may result in legislation to pave the way for solving many legal problems in specialized issues such as oil contracts. In this regard, in addition to genealogy of open contract, this article aims to examine its types and its effects legally in the laws of countries like Iran and European countries.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".