MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Análise das relações contratuais fáticas à luz do direito de empresa

2019· dissertation· pt· W3082785568 on OpenAlexaff
Emerson Soares Mendes

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languagept
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicLaw, Economics, and Judicial Systems
Canadian institutionsWiLAN (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObligationGermanGeneral partnershipDatabase transactionLawPublic serviceCommon lawBusinessSociologyPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis has as central issue the analysis of contractual relationship of fact theory under the Business Law vision.Beginning with the presentation of the foundations of contractual relationship of fact theory proposed by Günter Haupt and its development by Karl Larenz, this study proceeds with the analysis of structural elements of legal transaction and afterwards of commercial contract in Brazilian Business Law and the analysis at Roman Law Experience, English Law and German Law.Subsequently follows the analysis of the difference between contract, contractual relationship and contractual instrument to then analysing the nature of pre-contractal civil liability before contractual relationship of fact derived from the nominated social contact, the known partnership at will (currently nominated as common company) as specie of contractual relationship of fact derived from the insertion in a community relationship, ending with the study of conclusive behavior as a mean of negotial will exteriorization in service public contracting also before contractual relationship of fact arising from the Public Administration social obligation of rendering.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.002

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLaw, Economics, and Judicial SystemsFrench-language works237,207