Legal-Juridical Analysis of the Basis and Impact of Harmful Contracts on the Relations of the Sides and the Third Parties under the Act 2014 of the Way of Implementing Financial Sentences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given the relativity principle of contracts their impacts in proportion to third parties are an exceptional issue. In a possible assumption there is a possibility of harm and damage to a third party because of the contract between two people. In our juridical texts, some religious experts have sporadically in a topic of jurisprudence stated the instances of these contracts and have considered two theories of validity and invalidity about them. On the basis of this assumption, although the law of the way of implementing financial sentences considered hanged in 2014 but its 21st article with a bit of expansion has considered the former result. Therefore concerning these contracts by considering the valuable rule of the principle of no harm, we can accept the theory of relative lack of influence. Given the importance and role of the contracts in the life of community members and the lack of determining the influence of such contracts in legal and juridical texts the analysis of these impacts seems to be necessary. In the present article by analyzing the subject in legal and juridical texts of Iran the influence of these contracts in the relation between the parties and in proportion to third party is analyzed.
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 | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".