MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2397254388

Transnational Dispute Management (TDM) CETA Special

2016· article· en· W2397254388 on OpenAlexaffabout
Andrea K. Bjorklund, John Gaffney, Fabien Gélinas, Herfried Wöss

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInternational Arbitration and Investment Law
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDispute resolutionScope (computer science)BusinessKey (lock)Alternative dispute resolutionState (computer science)Law and economicsPolitical sciencePublic relationsLawEconomicsComputer securityComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

TDM CETA Special: The Special Issue contains five main sections, examining key characteristics and innovations of CETA relating to investor-state dispute resolution, state-state dispute resolution, issues of scope and attribution of responsibility to the parties to CETA, the codification of substantive protections for investments, and the regulatory space created for CETA's parties to pursue legitimate policy goals through exemption clauses. Taken together, these sections provide a comprehensive overview of key characteristics of CETA, while the individual papers, written by practitioners and academics with experience in Canadian and European jurisdictions, offer diverse perspectives on both the innovations and potential pitfalls of the agreement, as well as proposing corrective reforms of CETA.Note: Downloadable document is the introduction to the book and the table of contents.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.356

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0110.006
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1060.030

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.196 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicInternational Arbitration and Investment LawFrench-language works237,207