Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: L’auteur se penche sur la relation qui existe entre l’arbitre et le droit, en focalisant sur les questions de procedure et de droit applicable au fond du litige en arbitrage international. L’auteur montre que les arbitres ne se referent plus automatiquement au droit international prive de l’Etat du siege afin de determiner le droit applicable a la procedure ou au fond du litige, ni meme au droit international prive d’un Etat en particulier. Au contraire, l’auteur avance que la tendance est a l’internationalisation des regles de droit international prive : l’arbitre puise directement les regles de rattachement d’un ordre juridique transnational autonome, qui dispose de ses propres regles de droit international prive, tant pour le fond du litige que pour la procedure arbitrale.English Abstract: The author addresses the relationship between the arbitrator and the law, with an emphasis on the law and procedure that is applicable to international arbitration. It is demonstrated that arbitrators no longer automatically refer to the private international law of the state that is the seat of arbitration to determine the applicable law, nor to private international law rules of a particular country. On the contrary, there is a trend towards internationalizing the rules of private international law: the arbitrator obtains the governing law directly from an autonomous transnational legal system that has its own substantive and procedural rules in private international law.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.004 |
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".