Le Canada et le développement du droit international : La contribution de l’Affaire de la fonderie de Trail à la formation du nouveau droit de la pollution atmosphérique transfrontière.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to indicate how the decisions of the Trail Smelter Arbitral Tribunal, rendered in 1938 and 1941, have made a contribution to the development of international law, including, in particular, the emerging international legal rules relating to transboundary air pollution. Of particular importance was the Tribunal's enunciation of the principle of the international liability of a pollution-source state. The influence of the Trail Smelter case is examined in the light of the Corfu ChannelCase, the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (1963), the Helsinki Rules (1966), the Stockholm Principles (1972), the Nuclear Test Cases (1973-74), the OECD Principles concerning Transfrontier Pollution (1974 and 1976), and the Joint Statement on Transboundary Air Quality by Canada and the United States (1979). Two of the most difficult problems for solution in the case of transboundary pollution are: (1) equal access and non-discrimination with respect to remedies, and (2) liability and compensation. Canadian law has certain gaps in this regard. These and other problems of transboundary pollution pose a challenge for the 1980s and the TrailSmelter principle could make a contribution to their solution.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".