Being Conscious of Unconscionability in Modern Times: <i>Heller</i> v <i>Uber Technologies</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Requiring low‐paid drivers to sign an Arbitration Clause removing their right to local court processes can be unconscionable and, if so, the clause is not enforceable. This was the conclusion reached by the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada when considering a contractual provision that mandated all external dispute resolution processes go through mediation and arbitration in the Netherlands and required upfront fees of $14,500USD to do so. In this case note, it is argued that the Canadian decision opens the door for the United Kingdom to rethink the role of unconscionability and how the doctrine could apply to modern contractual arrangements. Heller v Uber Technologies provides the opportunity to develop the elements of unconscionability in a way that tackles inequality of bargaining power in standard form contracts, particularly when they fall outside the protection of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
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 | 0.019 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".