Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the most challenging and difficult, but also fascinating and intellectually rewarding tasks that may confront the international lawyer of today is the drafting of an international investment contract between his client and a foreign State or governmental agency. The legal skill and judicious draftsmanship which assignments of this character demand require familiarity with a range of issues and a body of law and practice which are neither well known by the bar generally, nor often readily available in full even to counsel specializing in the international sphere. Concession agreements and investment contracts concluded with foreign States are not a new phenomenon. Most of the foreign extractive operations of the international oil trade are based upon such instruments. So, traditionally, are those of other phases of the international mining industry. Many foreign railway enterprises and public utilities, as well as some shipping lines, likewise rest on a Government contract basis. Banks and other financial institutions have long experience with international loan contracts which in many ways pose the same legal problems as concessions. Concession contracts have greatly evolved since they made their first appearance as instruments of international intercourse and organization. Thus, in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, it was not unusual that private corporations, through concessions, obtained a more or less quasi-governmental status, as they were granted what in reality amounted to sovereignty over large territories and their inhabitants. Colonies were often initially developed in this manner. As examples, one may mention the far-reaching grant (lease) given by Sir James Brooke, Rajah of Sarawak, to the Borneo Company Limited in 1859 embracing a major part of the island of Borneo.1 The Hudson's Bay Company, as concessionaire, exercised sovereign authority over vast tracts of Canadian territory.2 Again, the German
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".