Bibliographic record
Abstract
Now in its sixth edition, Delay and Disruption in Construction Contracts retains its position as a foremost guide to the complex issues arising in the course of construction contracts, with robustly-updated content throughout and the addition of several new chapters, with a focus upon such topics as standard form provisions for the recovery of loss or expense, and Chinese and Peruvian construction law, amongst others. Expertly covering the manner in which delay and disruption should be considered at each stage of a construction project, from inception to completion and beyond, this book includes: Insight from an international team of specialist advisory editors Comparative analysis of the law in this field in Australia, Canada, England and Wales, Hong Kong, Ireland, New Zealand, the United States and in civil law jurisdictions Commentary upon, and comparison of, standard forms from Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, USA and elsewhere, including several new forms Chapters on adjudication, dispute boards and the civil law dynamic Extensive coverage of Building Information Modelling New chapters on Chinese, Nordic, Peruvian, Singaporean and Malaysian construction law New in-depth discussion of the JCT 2016 suite Updated case law, linked directly to the principles explained in the text. This book is an essential reference for any lawyer, dispute resolver, project manager, architect, engineer, contractor, or academic involved in the construction industry.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".