MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400598815 · doi:10.38127/uqlj.v43i2.8293

The Territorial Scope of Australia’s Unfair Contract Terms Provisions

2024· article· en· W4400598815 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sirko Harder

Bibliographic record

VenueThe University of Queensland Law Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScope (computer science)Project commissioningPublishingLawBusinessLaw and economicsPolitical scienceEconomicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Section 23 of the Australian Consumer Law, which is sch 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), invalidates unfair terms in particular types of contract. Section 5(1) of the Act extends the application of the Australian Consumer Law to conduct outside Australia by (among others) corporations carrying on business within Australia. In Carnival plc v Karpik (‘Ruby Princess’), the High Court of Australia held that s 5(1) applies to the unfair contract terms provisions without any further territorial limitation. The Court applied the provisions to a contract made in North America between a Canadian resident and a foreign company which was carrying on business in Australia through other transactions. This article investigates the territorial scope of the unfair contract terms provisions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.274 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe University of Queensland Law JournalSame topicLegal principles and applicationsFrench-language works237,207