L'exigence de coopération dans les contrats internationaux de franchise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le devoir de coopération s'affirme comme un nouveau concept destiné à\nfaciliter le bon usage des accords contractuels. En élargissant les principes de\nbonne foi ou d'intérêt commun, il jouxte la notion d'affectio societatis du droit\ndes sociétés. Ce concept s'est particulièrement développé pour appuyer la\nmondialisation des échanges économiques aussi bien comme guide des parties\ncontractantes dans la bonne administration de leurs relations que comme mode\nd'interprétation ou de règlement des différends. Le devoir de coopération est\nun souffle nouveau destiné à rendre implicite une attitude coopérative et non\nplus antagoniste des parties. Le domaine de.la franchise internationale est une ,\nbonne illustration de ce nouveau concept: les parties au contrat de franchise\ninternationale doivent s'adapter au marché local par exemple, ce qui nécessite à\nl'évidence une attitude entrepreneuriale coopérative. Le devoir de coopération\npeut être conçu comme une notion clef de la bonne exécution contractuelle. Il\nest en tout cas déjà consacré comme tel en droit contractuel international où il\nagit comme source de droit supplétive lorsque la lettre du contrat s'avère\ninsuffisante.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
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".