MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3049681128 · doi:10.38124/ijisrt20jul858

Are Browse-wrap Agreements Legally Binding: As Analysed Across Multiple Jurisdictions

2020· article· en· W3049681128 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Aashana Chandak

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology (IJISRT) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicDispute Resolution and Class Actions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNoticeEnforcementBusinessAbandonment (legal)Element (criminal law)European unionAmbiguityInternational tradeLawPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Browse-wrap agreements are e-contracts that lack the element of express consent which creates ambiguity in their enforcement across countries like India and Canada. The United States of America has through a plethora of case laws attempted to follow a framework with a adequate communication of notice system which is subjected to consumer protection concerns. With the recent enforcement of the General Data Protection Regulations(GDPR)in the European Union it has led to the complete abandonment of the browse-wrap agreements due to the lack of the consentbeing explicitly provided. Leading to the rise in the recognition of theclick-wrap agreements being adopted as a standardized form of e-commerce contracts across jurisdictions

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.747
Threshold uncertainty score0.665

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology (IJISRT)Same topicDispute Resolution and Class ActionsFrench-language works237,207