MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972025033 · doi:10.7202/701885ar

Le gouvernement socialiste espagnol et la participation à l’Alliance atlantique depuis novembre 1982 (Note)

2005· article· en· W1972025033 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bernard Labatut

Bibliographic record

VenueÉtudes internationales · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicInternational Maritime Law Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnited Nations Convention on the Law of the SeaPolitical scienceLawLaw of the seaCharterInternational lawConventionTerritorial watersFreedom of navigationGeographyPublic international law

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The United Nations adopted the Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC) on April 30, 1982 but the saga began in 1967 when Arvid Pardo, the Permanent Representative of Malta to the United Nations, called for a constitution for the oceans of the world and a charter for its sea-bed, its resources, its subsoil and the air above it. The third United Nations Law of the Sea Conference (UNCLOS III) was convened in 1973 and terminated in the historic vote at New York on April 30, 1982 where 130 nations voted for the Law of the Sea Convention, only four voted against and seventeen abstained. The Law of the Sea Convention is a giant step forward in world and human affairs because it is concerned with sharing the earth's underwater resources amongst the earth's inhabitants rather than on the basis of first come/first served. The Convention controls, protects, shares and develops the oceans for all mankind. Questions of 12 mile limits, exclusive economic zones, continental shelves, territorial water rights of transit and innocent passage are also dealt with. Much old law is codified, much new law is created and even for non signatories there is much new customary international law. The Law of the Sea Convention is perhaps the greatest legislative triumph of the United Nations in its 40 year history.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.945
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.287 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉtudes internationalesSame topicInternational Maritime Law IssuesFrench-language works237,207