MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3159763178

Art 6:104: Determination of Price

2017· article· en· W3159763178 on OpenAlexaff
Helge Dedek

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean and International Contract Law
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCertaintyLegal certaintyTerm (time)Law and economicsEconomicsBusinessActuarial scienceMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Art 6:104 provides, first and foremost, that a contract is not unenforceable for lack of certainty if the parties do not ‘fix the price or the method of determiningit’. The provision is thus meant — as are the following Art 6:105 and 6:106 — to ‘save’ contracts in cases in which there is ‘no doubt that the parties intended to be bound by the contract’. While all European legal systems require a certain degree of certainty to render a contractual term enforceable, national legal orders differ with respect to what are considered essential elements without which a contract cannot ‘exist’ and the degree of certainty required of the agreement in this regard.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
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: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.105

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.008
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0190.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0310.028

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.298 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicEuropean and International Contract LawFrench-language works237,207