MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3108520199 · doi:10.3138/utlj-2020-0100

The question of fairness in contract law

2020· article· en· W3108520199 on OpenAlexaffvenue
John D. McCamus

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Toronto Law Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVariety (cybernetics)Argument (complex analysis)EnforcementLawLaw and economicsState (computer science)Political scienceLaw enforcementRule of lawEconomicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The law of contracts has developed a variety of techniques for avoiding the enforcement of highly unfair, unreasonable, or burdensome terms. As yet, however, the common law has not directly adopted a straightforward rule to this effect. As a result, existing doctrines have been strained to achieve this objective. Further, there remain large gaps in the law in which such terms remain enforceable. The resulting state of the law contains many anomalies, uncertainties, and injustices. The author offers a sustained and convincing case for the explicit adoption of a rule permitting courts to refuse to enforce such terms. The argument draws support from an extensive review of historical and theoretical sources.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.702

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Toronto Law JournalSame topicLegal principles and applicationsFrench-language works237,207