MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6982803324

Kyko Global Inc v. Omkar Bhongir

2020· article· en· W6982803324 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeYLS (Yale Law School) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFactoringPleadingAccounts receivableCorporationProbateStatuteDamagesState (computer science)Subpoena
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this diversity action, Kyko Global Inc., a Canadian corporation, and Kyko Global GmbH, a Bahamian corporation (collectively, "Kyko"), brought fraud and negligence claims against Omkar Bhongir, a California resident who was once a member of the board of directors of an Indian company that used Kyko's services.After jurisdictional discovery, the District Court granted Bhongir's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, denied Kyko's motion to compel the production of documents, and ordered Kyko to pay the attorneys' fees that Bhongir incurred in defending against the motion to compel.Kyko has appealed all three orders.We will affirm.I. BACKGROUND Kyko, a company providing accounts receivable factoring services, alleges that Prithvi Information Solutions Ltd., an Indian corporation, fabricated information about customers and accounts receivables that fraudulently induced Kyko to enter into a loan factoring agreement with it.Kyko sued Bhongir, who was on the board of Prithvi from 2005-2009, claiming that he either assisted in the creation of that false information or knew of its existence.1 Bhongir moved to dismiss, alleging lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, expiration of the statute of limitations, and failure to state a claim.Bhongir also moved 1 Kyko has successfully sued other individuals and Prithvi itself for fraud in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington.Kyko Glob.Inc. v.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.148
Threshold uncertainty score0.294

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0080.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.005

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeYLS (Yale Law School)Same topicLegal principles and applicationsFrench-language works237,207