The Changing Role of the High Court in Relation to Supervision of Commercial Arbitrations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L'utilisation de plus en plus fréquente de l'arbitrage comme mode de règlement des conflits résultant des transactions commerciales internationales et le choix de la ville de Londres par de nombreux opérateurs du commerce international comme forum pour la solution de ces litiges ont amené les autorités législatives et judiciaires anglaises à restreindre de plus en plus le recours au pouvoir de contrôle des tribunaux sur les sentences arbitrales. L'histoire du droit anglais nous démontre que les tribunaux de droit commun ont joué un rôle important dans le développement du droit commercial, et ce particulièrement lors de la révision de sentences arbitrales. Dans cet article l'auteur se demande si les restrictions apportées par le législateur anglais à l'intervention du pouvoir judiciaire en matière d'arbitrage commercial international n'auront pas d'effets préjudiciables sur l'évolution du droit commercial.
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 | 0.012 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
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".