MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2474561024 · doi:10.5539/jpl.v9n5p145

A Comparative Study of Executive Guaranty of Arbitration at International Law (International Court of Arbitration and the New York Convention) and Iranian Law

2016· article· en· W2474561024 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shila Taheri, Hassan Soleımanı

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Politics and Law · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInternational Arbitration and Investment Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArbitrationCompulsory arbitrationLawInternational arbitrationInternational lawArbitration clausePolitical scienceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study is an attempt to analyze the executive guaranty of arbitration at international law within internal Iranian law and the international law. The present research findings show that within internal law in case the arbitration verdict is not carried out voluntarily then its obligatory administration is under the support of law and has legal executive guaranty. But arbitration privilege at administration stage is not limited to the fact that any arbitration verdict is to be performed without any questioning but a significant aspect of this privilege is to prevent the administration of a verdict which is altered or creased and openly against the facts or the law. In international law the international commerce chamber arbitration system is the most important international trade arbitration system in contemporary period and has always been the influential forerunner in international arbitration and has had a significant role in the development and expansion of arbitration method of settling international trade disputes. Both the chamber arbitration rules and arbitration verdicts which are issued under the chamber arbitration framework are among the most important legal resources in terms of international arbitration and are considered as the constructive and formative factors of international arbitration procedure. It should be mentioned that commerce chamber arbitration organization lacks the executive tools to execute the arbitration verdicts. But in spite of that on the basis of arbitration rules article 35 the arbitration authority and the chamber arbitration court makes attempts to execute the verdict and the purpose is mostly the official measures rather than judicial or administrative. Principally, the execution of arbitration verdicts depend on state rules and regulations where from the identification and administration of verdict is requested.

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)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Politics and LawSame topicInternational Arbitration and Investment LawFrench-language works237,207