MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2479652817 · doi:10.1017/cbo9781316152584.009

United Mexican States <i>v</i>. Feldman Karpa

2005· article· en· W2479652817 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Law Reports · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInternational Arbitration and Investment Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArbitrationTribunalAnnulmentJurisdictionLawInternational trade lawPolitical scienceArbitration clauseConfidentialityIntellectual propertyStandard of reviewInternational arbitrationCompulsory arbitrationJudicial review

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

536 Arbitration — Challenge — Arbitration tribunal constituted under North American Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”), Chapter 11 — Arbitral award — Mexico applying to set aside arbitral award — Proceedings in Canadian courts Arbitration — Disclosure of confidential information — Adverse inference from failure to provide information — Article 34 of UNCITRAL Model Law — NAFTA Article 2105 Relationship of international law and municipal law — Application for judicial review of arbitral award — Annulment of award by national court — Article 34 of UNCITRAL Model Law — Jurisdiction to apply provisions not raised during arbitral proceedings — NAFTA Article 210 — Deference to arbitral award — International commercial arbitrators — Review of findings of fact — Article 34(2) and 34(3) of UNCITRAL Model Law — ICSID Article 53 — Breach of public policy — Article 34(2) (b)(ii) of UNCITRAL Model Law Economics, trade and finance — Investment protection — NAFTA — Chapter 11 — National treatment — Nondiscrimination — NAFTA Article 1102 — Less favourable treatment of foreign investors — The law of 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.221
Threshold uncertainty score0.440

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1200.021

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.224 · 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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Law ReportsSame topicInternational Arbitration and Investment LawFrench-language works237,207