MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1923405187 · doi:10.5539/ass.v11n18p274

United Nation Convention on the Law of the Sea: Inevitable Way towards Revision to Overcome South China Sea Disputes

2015· article· en· W1923405187 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Natalia Prisekina, Роман Дремлюга

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicInternational Maritime Law Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnited Nations Convention on the Law of the SeaChinaPolitical scienceOrder (exchange)LawConventionLaw of the seaMaritime boundaryBaseline (sea)GeographyInternational lawBusinessPublic international law

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the authors’ opinions, some provisions and definitions of UNCLOS have serious gaps that lead to various interpretations and misunderstandings by countries. Due to provisional gaps, all parties of the South China Sea Disputes have their own opinions on the UNCLOS interpretations and are confident that they follow International Law. The authors propose that certain provisions of UNCLOS need revised in order to resolve actual disputes and prevent further debates. These provisions include, but are not limited to, the current distinction between an island and a rock; and the strait baseline concept that permits to delineate big sea areas far from the coast.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.912
Threshold uncertainty score0.367

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicInternational Maritime Law IssuesFrench-language works237,207