MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767838882 · doi:10.1177/1473779517735286

Predictability, certainty, and party autonomy in the sale and supply of goods

2017· article· en· W2767838882 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ji Lian Yap

Bibliographic record

VenueCommon Law World Review · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicLaw, logistics, and international trade
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegal certaintyLegislationCertaintyPredictabilityLawCommon lawAutonomyLaw and economicsSupreme courtBusinessOrder (exchange)Interpretation (philosophy)JurisdictionEconomicsPolitical scienceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Predictability, certainty, and party autonomy are important goals in the development of legal principles. This article will examine these concepts and discuss a theoretical framework by which legal developments can be assessed. This theoretical framework will be applied in order to critically consider recent developments in two key areas relating to the sale and supply of goods, namely the action for price, and the characterization of contracts. In examining the interrelation between case law and legislation in these aspects of Commercial Law, the impact of the recent UK Supreme Court decision in PST Energy 7 Shipping v OW Bunker Malta (The Res Cogitans) will be explored. This landmark case considered several provisions of the UK Sale of Goods Act 1979. Many common law jurisdictions, such as Hong Kong and Singapore, have legislation that is very similar to the UK Sale of Goods Act, and Res Cogitans is thus of great interest and concern to those in such common law jurisdictions, since the courts in these jurisdictions are likely to view Res Cogitans as highly persuasive in the interpretation of similar local legislation. Various law reform options (including those inspired by the Canadian Uniform Sale of Goods Act) and suggestions for the drafting of contractual clauses will then be critically considered, with a view to promoting predictability, certainty, and party autonomy in the law relating to the sale and supply of goods.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.034
Scholarly communication0.0100.015
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommon Law World ReviewSame topicLaw, logistics, and international tradeFrench-language works237,207