Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unconscionability can and should be used in appropriate cases to ensure access to justice for contracting parties in Canada. In this comment, I articulate a test for the application of unconscionability to what I call access clauses — clauses such as arbitration clauses and forum selection clauses that affect how a contracting party can access an adjudicative process. This test follows, and rationalises, recent judicial attempts to apply unconscionability to access clauses in the cases of Douez v Facebook and Heller v Uber. Previous attempts to make sense of — or criticise — these applications of unconscionability, have been limited in attempting to discipline the doctrine to the logic of contract law. But unconscionability is equitable: it relieves parties from contractual obligations despite every requirement of contract law being met. Cases applying unconscionability to ensure access to justice, which access clauses sometimes deny, reflect a new kind of inequity from which courts will relieve, rather than a new error of contractual logic. That inequity is an inaccess to justice.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.005 |
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 it