MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4233200862 · doi:10.5539/jpl.v10n1p145

Investigation and Comparison of Time and Location of Contract Conclusion in Iranian Electronic Commerce Act and UNCITRAL Model Law

2016· article· en· W4233200862 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Seyed Abolhasan Mosavi, Abdolmohammad Afrogh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Politics and Law · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicDispute Resolution and Class Actions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCyberspaceCredibilityLawBusinessConflict of lawsComputer scienceThe InternetPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cyberspace is considered as one of the most modern means for the conclusion of contracts and meeting the obligations arising from that, particularly in commercial transactions. The nature of electronic contracts- in terms of credibility, form and homogeneity with public disciplines and regulations of civil law about the contracts- is a new topic based on which recognition and investigation on the legal effects depend on the formal structure of cyberspace and information and communication technology concepts known in this area. Present work mainly investigates following items: Electronic contract conclusion and specific properties of such agreements, effect of electronic trait on its way of formation as well as compatibility of public rules and regulation of electronic contracts in Iranian Electronic Commerce Acts and UNCITRAL model law. Electronic contract principally does not differ traditional ones in terms of nature. However, structure of cyberspace has brought up new specifications and concepts. A descriptive-analytical method with comparative approach were used for data collection. Current rules and regulations of the contracts area in traditional space seem to not be able to completely meet emerging rights in cyberspace, but beside traditional legal basics, some rules and regulations are necessary to eliminate existing confusion by setting determination in modern legal uncertainties. Present study tries to answer above queries by assessment and comparison of the location and time of contract conclusion in Electronic Commerce Act and UNCITRAL Model Law.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.846
Threshold uncertainty score0.179

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Politics and LawSame topicDispute Resolution and Class ActionsFrench-language works237,207