MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3011191147 · doi:10.37491/unz.69-70.6

Features of Legal Regulation of the Circulation Order of Gift Certificates

2019· article· en· W3011191147 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity Scientific Notes · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Studies and Reforms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationCertificateLegislatorCivil codeLawCirculation (fluid dynamics)Civil law (Civil law)The RepublicLegislatureOrder (exchange)BusinessConstitutionPaymentPurchasingPolitical scienceCommercial lawFinanceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article analyzes the novels of the legislation of the Republic of Belarus concerning the procedure for using gift certificates when selling goods (performance of works, rendering services). It has been done a comparative analysis of the legal regulation of the procedure for circulation of gift certificates in the Republic of Belarus, Ukraine and some foreign countries (Canada, the USA). The author raises some problems concerning the use of a gift certificate in civil circulation. It is pointed out that there is uncertainty both in the theory of civil law and at the level of legislative regulation regarding the civil law nature of a gift certificate. It is noted that the analysis of the legislation in force in the Republic of Belarus allows us to define a gift certificate as a document certifying the property right (requirement) of its holder (bearer) to receive goods (works, services), and the amount of money contributed when purchasing a gift certificate, as advance payment (advance payment). At the same time, such an approach of the legislator is criticized due to the fact that there is a clear contradiction to the requirements of Art. 402 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Belarus, from the content of which it follows that the advance payment presupposes the existence of a contract in which the subject has been agreed, which is not typical of most gift certificates, due to the fact that they do not contain an indication of the subject of the contract. Having done the analysis of the civil legislation of Ukraine, the author makes a conclusion that there is application of the rules on a purchase agreement to gift certificates, the subject of which may be property rights in accordance with the Civil Code of Ukraine. The conclusion is made about the imperfection of the legal regulation of the procedure for circulation of gift certificates in the Republic of Belarus and Ukraine, as well as about the complex legal nature of the gift certificate, regarding which legal regulation should be more universal, defining a gift certificate as an independent object of civil legal relationship.

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.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.521
Threshold uncertainty score0.726

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.205 · 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