Arbitrability under the New York Convention: the Lex Fori Revisited
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNDER THE 1958 New York. Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, the arbitrability of the subject matter of a dispute may be at issue when a national court is called upon to recognize an arbitration agreement and refer the parties to arbitration (Article II), or when the court is requested to enforce a foreign arbitral award (Article V). In both cases, the preliminary question of the law governing arbitrability needs to be answered. This question has been the subject of much discussion and debate. National courts have contemplated – alternatively or cumulatively – the law of the forum (lex fori), the law chosen by the parties to govern the arbitration clause (lex electionis) or their contract (lex contractus), or, further, the law of the seat of the arbitral tribunal (lex arbitrii) or the place of enforcement of...
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 | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.025 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.005 |
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".