Arbitration Between Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia concerning Portions of the Limits of Their Offshore Areas as defined in the Canada–Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and the Canada–Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act
Bibliographic record
Abstract
425 Arbitration — International maritime boundary award — Dispute regarding boundary line dividing offshore areas of two Canadian Provinces — Oil, gas and mineral rights on continental shelf — Accord Acts — Dispute settlement provisions — Terms of Reference — Canadian Provinces to be treated as States for purposes of arbitration — Arbitration in two stages — Phase One to determine whether boundary line resolved by agreement — 1964 Joint Statement — 1972 Communiqué — Subsequent practice of Parties — Relevance — Phase Two to determine line in absence of agreement — Applicable law Sea — Delimitation of maritime boundaries between Parties — Continental shelf — Delimitation of continental shelf beyond 200 nautical mile limit to outer edge of continental margin — Method of delimitation — Practical method — Equitable result — Geographical context — Governing law — Whether fourth Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf, 1958 applicable — Article 6 of Geneva Convention — Provisional strict equidistance line — Whether requiring adjustment — Conduct of Parties — Relevant geographical circumstances — Whether proportionality test relevant Treaties — Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf, 1958, Article 6 — United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982, Article 83(1) and (4) — Customary international law — Law governing maritime delimitation — Unity — Flexibility
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".