MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2280813928

Mediation an increasingly acceptable solution to commercial disputes : the law

2007· article· en· W2280813928 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tony Allen

Bibliographic record

VenueWithout Prejudice · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicDispute Resolution and Class Actions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMediationAlternative dispute resolutionDispute resolutionLawyer supported mediationDispute mechanismPolitical scienceAccreditationLawOnline dispute resolutionPublic relations
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The mediation of commercial disputes is spreading across the world. Starting in the US over 25 years ago and spreading early to Canada and Australia, it has begun to flourish both in the UK and the growing European Community. The Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution (CEDR), founded in 1990, provides both mediation and consultancy services in dispute resolution and conflict prevention in the UK and internationally and also offers an assessed accreditation process to mediators.

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.128

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.052
Scholarly communication0.0220.022
Open science0.0040.016
Research integrity0.0220.020
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.003

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.254 · 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
GenreCommentary

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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWithout PrejudiceSame topicDispute Resolution and Class ActionsFrench-language works237,207