MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Improvement of Online Arbitration Rules of Evidence in China

2012· article· en· W1842819733 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xia Zheng

Bibliographic record

VenueCross-cultural communication · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicDispute Resolution and Class Actions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArbitrationPerspective (graphical)Empirical evidenceChinaKey (lock)Computer scienceBusinessPolitical scienceLawComputer securityArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Online arbitration as an emerging method for resolving disputes has variable forms. Within the system, the storage and exchange of the evidence depends greatly on the system environment and the authenticity of the evidence is easily damaged. This paper compares the differences between online arbitration rules of evidence and civil rules of evidence. Then the author analyzes the flaws of online arbitration rules of evidence and proposes ideas of improvement. At last the author summarizes the feature and uniqueness of online arbitration and gives some detailed suggestions from the perspective of technical protection, collection evidence rules as well as supporting measures to online arbitration. Key words: Online arbitration; Rules of evidence; Electronic evidence

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.794
Threshold uncertainty score0.166

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCross-cultural communicationSame topicDispute Resolution and Class ActionsFrench-language works237,207