Party Autonomy and Consumer Arbitration in Conflict: A “Trojan Horse” in the Access to Justice in the E.U. ADR-Directive 2013/11?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Arbitration clauses in consumer contracts have been subject to controversy in many jurisdictions; recent U.S. and Canadian Supreme Court case law have been used as examples. European Union (E.U.) law, which originally excluded arbitration in general from the Brussels/Rome regimes, has recently taken a mixed, and to some extent limited, approach by including Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) entities “imposing” a solution in its recent ADR Directive 2013/11. There seems to be an indirect encouragement to develop consumer arbitration schemes in E.U. Member States as a second route to justice. It is too early to evaluate this new and somewhat clandestine policy of the E.U. The paper insists on some additional procedural guarantees should consumer arbitration schemes become more popular among Member countries, even though Dir. 2013/11 already contains some “minimum protection” provisions on “specific acceptance” and applicable law. The basic reference for such additional protection is in Article 47 of the E.U. Charter of Fundamental Rights, viewed together with Article 19(1) para. 2 of the Treaty on the European Union (TEU) whereby “Member States shall “provide remedies sufficient to ensure effective legal protection in the fields covered by Union law”. At the time of writing, the implementation measures of Member States concerning Dir. 2013/11 have to be awaited before making any final judgment as to their conformity with E.U. law and efficiency. The paper seeks to provide some guidelines for this coming debate.
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 | 0.019 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".