MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2339263278 · doi:10.14330/jeail.2015.8.2.07

Treaty on the Wall, Who is the Fairest One of All: The Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement

2015· article· en· W2339263278 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of East Asia and International Law · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInternational Arbitration and Investment Law
Canadian institutionsCanada Research Chairs
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaTreatyPolitical sciencePromotion (chess)International tradeForeign direct investmentBilateral investment treatyInternational investmentBusinessLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada and China's new Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement ("CC-FIPA") came into force on October 1, 2014.This work discusses some of the main benefits to be gained from building stronger investment relations between Canada-China, as well as a Canadian perspective on the main investment risks that are most likely to impede either country from achieving the full potential in their investment relations.Against this backdrop, this work then examines those provisions in the CC-FIPA that are most central to promoting Canada-

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.809
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of East Asia and International LawSame topicInternational Arbitration and Investment LawFrench-language works237,207