Bibliographic record
Abstract
The freedom of contract has an economic regulating rule, both on individual and on communal level; secures either the enforcement of the law of the self-determination of the parts, or the possibility of market participation.\nGwartney and Lawson, elaborators of the conception of the economic freedom, said that the capstones of the economic freedom are the freedom for the decisions and for the acts of the persons, moreover the volunteering of the exchange, the freedom of the competition, the protection of the persons and their properties.\nSeveral indicators are available for measuring the economic freedom. One of them is the index of the Canadian Fraser Institute Economic Freedom of the World; furthermore it is one of the most respected indicators. This index investigates the rate of the economic freedom by using 42 factors grouped to five parts. These five components are the legal system and the protection of the ownership, size of the state, reliable, so stable valued money, the freedom of the foreign trade, the capital market and the regulation of the business. The last four items can be identified as the freedom of the contract.
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 | 0.026 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.117 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".