MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028167577 · doi:10.1002/alt.20041

Trade agreements and bilateral treaties expand use of investor‐state arbitration provisions

2004· article· en· W2028167577 on OpenAlexaff
M. Kantor

Bibliographic record

VenueAlternatives to the High Cost of Litigation · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInternational Arbitration and Investment Law
Canadian institutionsCanadian Pacific Railway (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArbitrationBusinessState (computer science)International tradeInternational economicsLawEconomicsPolitical scienceComputer scienceAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In a move to help arbitration gain an even stronger foothold as an alternative to unreliable national courts, the U.S. State Department with the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative earlier this year released a new draft U.S. model bilateral investment treaty. The new model's objective, writes Mark Kantor, of Washington, D.C., in the first of two parts, is to provide a consistent approach to dealing with conflict over investment provisions in Nafta and other free trade agreements, and future treaties.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.007
Scholarly communication0.0110.009
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0060.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlternatives to the High Cost of LitigationSame topicInternational Arbitration and Investment LawFrench-language works237,207