MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2519076878

L’Arbitre international face à la corruption (The International Arbitrator Faced with Corruption)

2016· article· fr· W2519076878 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Goldenbaum

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInternational Arbitration and Investment Law
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceObligationLanguage changeLaw and economicsPaymentFace (sociological concept)DutyHumanitiesLawBusinessSociologyPhilosophySocial scienceFinance
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

English Abstract: Corruption plagues business relations. The international arbitrator can be confronted by it when parties refer to him or her a dispute concerning either a brokerage agreement hiding the payment of a bribe or the direct payment of a sum of money to the person deciding to award a contract to a company. The arbitrator then faces conflicting interests, raising the issue of the factual proof of bribery and his or her duty to report the facts to state authorities. Regarding proof, shifting the burden or using a higher standard of proof than usual do not seem to be appropriate solutions to address the difficulty to prove bribery. Regarding the reporting of bribery to state authorities, imposing this obligation upon arbitrators would be unjustified and counter-productive. Finally, the international arbitrator must fight bribery while not losing his or her particularities. The difficulties to achieve these goals and the divergent opinions highlight the necessity of guidelines on the issue.French Abstract: La corruption est un fleau qui attaque de nombreuses relations d’affaires. L’arbitre international peut y etre confronte lorsqu’il est saisi d’un litige, qui porte, soit sur un contrat d’intermediation couvrant en realite le versement d’un pot-de-vin, soit lorsqu’une personne verse directement une somme d’argent a l’individu qui prendra la decision d’accorder un contrat a une entreprise. L’arbitre fait alors face a des interets contradictoires qui soulevent les questions de la preuve des faits de corruption et de leur denonciation par l’arbitre aux autorites etatiques. S’agissant de la preuve, le renversement du fardeau de la preuve ou l’utilisation d’un standard de preuve plus eleve qu’a l’ordinaire ne semblent pas etre de bonnes solutions pour contrer les difficultes a prouver les faits de corruption. S’agissant de la denonciation de la corruption aux autorites etatiques, imposer cette obligation aux les arbitres internationaux serait injustifie et contreproductif. Finalement, l’arbitre international doit lutter contre la corruption sans perdre ses specificites. Les difficultes pour atteindre ces objectifs et les divergences d’opinion revelent la necessite de lignes directrices sur la question.

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)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.005
Scholarly communication0.0100.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0090.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.003

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.214 · 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
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic Journal→Same topicInternational Arbitration and Investment Law→French-language works237,207→