Bibliographic record
Abstract
The UNIDROIT Convention on International Financial Leasing, 2312 UNTS 195, henceforth UNIDROIT Financial Leasing Convention, was adopted on 28 May 1988, at the conclusion of a Diplomatic Conference convened by the Canadian government, as was its sister convention, the Ottawa Factoring Convention (UNIDROIT Convention on International Factoring of 28 May 1988, 2323 UNTS 373, 27 ILM 943; —> Factoring (uniform law)). Like the International Factoring Convention, the UNIDROIT Financial Leasing Convention entered into force on 1 May 1995. The efforts leading up to the UNIDROIT Financial Leasing Convention go back to 1974, when the UNIDROIT Secretariat submitted to the Governing Council of —> UNID ROIT a proposal for the preparation of a preliminary study looking into whether the elaboration of uniform rules on leasing would be desirable and feasible. Once the Governing Council agreed to this proposal, the efforts towards the creation of uniform rules on leasing became a priority. Over the years, these efforts led to a preliminary report containing a number of policy considerations, which the Governing Council endorsed in 1975. The policy considerations included the exclusion of real estate leasing from the scope of the instrument to be drafted—because of the limited impact of that form of leasing at the international level, and the difficulties the drafters would have faced in attempting to unify at the same time principles of the law of real property and the law of personal property (—> Property and proprietary rights). Tentative drafts were made, as well as various revised drafts, the last of which, still containing reservations regarding certain provisions which were placed in square brackets for decision, was laid before the aforementioned Diplomatic Conference.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.045 | 0.019 |
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".