MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Anti-Bribery Laws in Common Law Jurisdictions

2014· book· en· W602559176 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stuart H. Deming

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2014
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Education and Practice Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJurisdictionLawLegislationCommon lawConflict of lawsBusinessForeign Corrupt Practices ActLiabilityPolitical scienceEnforcement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This book provides a comprehensive analysis of the foreign bribery laws, and related laws and regulations, in all of the major common law jurisdictions. For Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States, the critical factors associated with the laws that are applied to bribery in foreign settings are explained and analyzed. Given the extent of their extraterritorial reach, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”), the UK Bribery Act, and the official guidance associated with each are extensively addressed along with the related legal obligations related to record-keeping practices and maintaining adequate internal controls and effective compliance programs. Within the same framework, the foreign bribery legislation in the other major common law jurisdictions—Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, and South Africa—are similarly addressed. For each jurisdiction, careful attention is given to laws that may expose an individual or entity to private or commercial bribery in foreign settings as well as to the application of laws relating to money laundering and accounting and record-keeping practices to situations involving foreign bribery. Throughout, special attention is given to explaining the criteria used in each jurisdiction to establish liability on the part of an entity or organization.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 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

Citations7
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Press eBooksSame topicLegal Education and Practice InnovationsFrench-language works237,207