MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1599454190

The Coalition Provisional Authority and Iraq: Investment Law and Policy in Action

2013· article· en· W1599454190 on OpenAlexaff
Fahad Siddiqui

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInternational Arbitration and Investment Law
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForeign direct investmentInvestment (military)Foreign policyPoliticsRegulatory authorityAction (physics)LawForeign portfolio investmentInvestment policyForeign policy analysisInternational economicsBusinessOpen-ended investment companyInternational tradePolitical scienceEconomicsPublic administrationReturn on investmentMacroeconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Following the invasion of Iraq, the American-run Coalition Provisional Authority (“CPA”) introduced a series of Orders and Regulations that restructured the foreign investment landscape in that country. Some of these regulations, and the political story behind their implementation, have received scholarly attention. However, few commentators have analyzed the body of CPA-issued regulations for provisions relevant to foreign investment. This paper traces the evolution of investment law in occupied Iraq through a detailed evaluation of CPA-issued Orders and Regulations. Analysis of these regulations, of pre-existing US policy on foreign investment, and of criteria used to measure foreign investment regulation reveals the extent to which the CPA regime installed in Iraq is intensely pro-foreign investor and reflects a policy commitment to opening developing markets to foreign investment.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.174

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0090.018
Scholarly communication0.0120.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.237 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic Journal→Same topicInternational Arbitration and Investment Law→French-language works237,207→