MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W627225013 · doi:10.82308/32239

Towards a uniform conflict of laws regime in ASEAN governing international commercial transactions : uniformization of choice of law rules in contract and tort

2000· article· en· W627225013 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yew Nghee Lim

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicConflict of Laws and Jurisdiction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTortConflict of lawsChoice of lawUniformization (probability theory)Law and economicsLawEconomicsPolitical scienceBusinessMathematicsLiability

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To compete effectively in the global economy, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations [hereinafter ASEAN] needs supranational legal infrastructure that facilitates international business transactions. As such, this thesis examines choice of law issues in contract and tort in Canada, Louisiana, the Second Restatement on Conflict of Laws 1969, the United Kingdom, the Rome Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations 1980, and Singapore. Using a proposed Model Law on contract and tort choice of law in ASEAN, this thesis will demonstrate that despite differences in the existing choice of law rules, a uniform regime may nevertheless be formulated without significant compromises. On the broader level, this thesis proposes a uniform conflict of laws regime in ASEAN. Using the analogy of contract and tort choice of law, this thesis argues that divergences may be reconciled and a uniform regime forged. It is desired that this thesis will contribute towards the uniformizing of conflict of laws in ASEAN.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.011
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 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
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)Same topicConflict of Laws and JurisdictionFrench-language works237,207