Bibliographic record
Abstract
This Article examines the growing opposition to arbitration of investor-state disputes involving challenges to regulatory measures under Chapter 11 of NAFTA. The NAFTA Parties apparently seek to restore national sovereignty over such matters by subjecting these awards to heightened review by municipal courts at the seat of arbitration, effectively giving Canadian, Mexican, and United States courts the final authority to interpret Chapter 11. When successful, this practice violates both the letter of Chapter 11 and the intent of the NAFTA Parties to place investor-state disputes within the deferential legal framework of international commercial arbitration. Although the NAFTA Parties may, escape liability for such unlawful conduct, they threaten to undermine the past century's efforts to promote robust principles of state responsibility for economic injuries to aliens. Furthermore, routine derogation from the principle of voluntary acceptance of authoritative decisions rendered at the international level by impartial bodies charged with supervision of treaty compliance bodes ill for the development of the rule of law in international economic relations.
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 | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".