Foundations of Employer’s Liability Arising the Violation of General Obligation to Provide Enforcement Conditions for International Contracts; "Comparative Study in Canadian and Iranian Law"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the scope of global trade, the implementation of international contracting contracts is facing some challenges and issues. One of these issues is providing the conditions for implementation of these contracts and the obligation of the employer in this regard. The main and crucial point is to determine the basis of employer's general obligation to provide the conditions for implementation of international contracting contracts which makes defensible why of the task and in other words, the employer's general obligation in this scope; because the existence of any obligation must be based on a foundation that in absence of that foundation, imposing the obligation will be eliminated. In this article, we intend to examine the issue with a comparative study of Canadian and Iranian law. The research method is descriptive-comparative with a "contextual" approach. The focus of this research is on "international contracting contract". The method of collecting research resources is a library, which is done by using written sources, documents and if Necessary, online information. The research finding Suggests that in Canadian and Iranian Law, the Main foundation for Liability arising breach of the employer's general obligation is the “Risk Management Theory”, with explanation that the prevailing risks that occur in the scope of international contracting contract are often in conflict with the employer's interests in the performance of the contract, he must in order to avoid these risks and the resulting damages, manage and control.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".