MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393120096 · doi:10.61525/s231243500030174-9

Concept of Goods in Exchange Trading Laws

2024· article· en· W4393120096 on OpenAlexaff
Елена Сидорова

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy law forum · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicLaw, logistics, and international trade
Canadian institutionsInimex Pharmaceuticals (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessLaw and economicsLawCommerceEconomicsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Considering the tasks set by the government for the economy, the legal mechanisms for entering into contracts for the sale (supply) of goods on exchanges will continue evolving and improving, and the list of items that can be traded on exchanges will expand further. In order to create representative indicators and fair market prices for goods that are significant for the country (which cannot always be considered things), it seems reasonable to apply the concept of “goods” in a broader sense, including therein other objects of civil rights, other property, in addition to things, or even name specific property rights depending on which objects of civil rights the new “incorporeal” entities discussed above will be classified as in the Exchange Trading Law. An interesting question is that of listing on exchanges goods that are not things, but, as stated above, can also be traded on exchanges (carbon units, “green” certificates, and other similar objects). Considering the qualitative characteristics of such exchange-traded objects, one cannot speak of quality in the same sense as with things, nevertheless, the characteristics that objects may have in order to become exchange-traded commodities must be determined by the exchange establishing admission rules.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.021
Scholarly communication0.0090.015
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.217 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergy law forumSame topicLaw, logistics, and international tradeFrench-language works237,207