From Acorn to Oak Tree: the Development of the Cape Town Convention and Protocols
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The preparation of any international uniform law is a long and arduous business. The Cape Town project began as a relatively modest venture on a proposal made in June 1988 by Mr T.B. Smith QC, the Canadian member of the UNIDROIT Governing Council, to build on the UNIDROIT Convention on International Financial Leasing, which had been adopted the same year, and prepare an instrument focused on mobile equipment but otherwise broader in scope than the Leasing Convention. The new instrument would deal with security interests in mobile equipment, covering not only security in the traditional sense but also the interests of conditional sellers and lessors. Now experience over the years has shown the vital importance of establishing three key factors before embarking on a project of uniform law. First, is there a problem? That may seem an obvious question but I can recall the time when UNIDROIT was very much influenced by academics – which, of course, is an excellent thing, there can never be too many academics – and the Governing Council had on its work programme a large range of projects most of which had appeared in the programme because a member of the Governing Council had had a bright idea! The existence of a problem was assumed to arise simply from differences in national laws. That rather happygo-lucky approach was long ago abandoned, and the Governing Council will
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it