MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2934810840

Sectoral Fragmentation in Transnational Contract Law

2018· article· en· W2934810840 on OpenAlexaff
Joshua Karton

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Pennsylvania journal of business law · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicLaw, logistics, and international trade
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHarmonizationGlobalizationFragmentation (computing)Private lawMunicipal lawCommercial lawCorporate governanceMistakeComparative lawLawPublic lawBusinessPolitical scienceLaw and economicsEconomicsMarket economyFinance
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The transnational commercial law literature has long told a story in which globalization yields ever-increasing legal harmonization.This Article argues that it is a mistake to equate globalization with harmonization.Even as the law of commercial relationships continues to globalize, it will split along industry sector lines.National boundaries will matter less and boundaries between industries will matter more, with one law for financial services, another for oil and gas, another for software, and so on.Borrowing a term and a conceptual framework from the public international law t r t r t Art s t s no non "s tor r g nt t on " State governance declines in importance compared with private governance, the borderless and sector-specific structure of commercial communities is being recapitulated in formal contract law.This Article describes the forces driving sectoral fragmentation and the specific legal mechanisms through which it occurs.It concludes by exploring the consequences of sectoral fragmentation for contract law and for the regulation of cross-border commercial activity more generally.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0060.031
Scholarly communication0.0090.010
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Pennsylvania journal of business lawSame topicLaw, logistics, and international tradeFrench-language works237,207