Bibliographic record
Abstract
While to an economist, business person or policy maker, movement of goods, services and foreign direct investment should logically be covered in the same agreement, history has not allowed this to happen. International legal regimes are spinning into greater fragmentation as the number of preferential trade agreements and bilateral investment treaties with investor-state arbitration mechanisms continues to increase. The multilateral system is at risk as the Doha Round has stalled, and WTO Members have turned instead to negotiating bilateral and plurilateral agreements. Dispute settlement, however, continues unabated, both in the WTO and under international investment agreements. With the proliferation of investment arbitration cases under different fora being heard by ad hoc tribunals there are risks of inconsistent and incoherent awards, raising concerns that this may threaten the legitimacy of the systems themselves. The question arises: how to encourage greater convergence and coherence of trade and investment rules, so that they reflect economic realities and make policy sense? Can this be left solely to investment tribunals and WTO panels/Appellate Body? Or is it time to reconsider multilateral rules on investment?
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.031 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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.
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".