MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404688326 · doi:10.54648/amdm2024039

Litigating the Arbitration Clause: Considering Uber-Driver Arbitration in India

2024· article· en· W4404688326 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueArbitration. · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInternational Arbitration and Investment Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArbitrationArbitration clauseBusinessLawCompulsory arbitrationPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Canada, hundreds of Uber drivers came together for a class action lawsuit against Uber seeking benefits under Ontario employment laws. In India, drivers engaged by an instant delivery service platform went on strike against a new pay structure under which the minimum pay-out per delivery was reduced, leading to a drop in the earnings of the service provider by 50% per day. The terms of service form part of standard form non-negotiable agreements. Companies that include a mandatory arbitration clause with such standard form contracts are increasingly facing lawsuits across jurisdictions. The Canadian Supreme Court held such an arbitration clause invalid, largely on the ground that it was part of a ‘standard form contract’ that was ‘non-negotiable’ and ‘realistically unattainable’. Enforcing such arbitration clauses with users have had mixed success, leading to business uncertainty and raising transaction costs due to litigation across jurisdictions. This article explores implications of decisions across jurisdictions regarding such arbitration clauses in the Indian context. The article then argues for a universal harmonization of rules from a global perspective by formulating a general principle to afford certainty to businesses operating at a global level.

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 categoriesScholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.733
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
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArbitration.Same topicInternational Arbitration and Investment LawFrench-language works237,207