Todd Weiler, The Interpretation of International Investment Law: Equality, Discrimination and Minimum Standards of Treatment in Historical Context, Boston, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2013
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Une importante caracteristique du droit international de l’investissement est son heterogeneite. La multitude de traites qui touchent le domaine de l’investissement et l’absence de regime multilateral ont resulte en la creation d’une panoplie de mecanismes de reglement des differends independants les uns des autres, ou les arbitres ont une grande marge de manœuvre pour prendre leur decision. Ce grand pouvoir d’interpretation remis entre les mains de professionnels du DII peu scrupuleux ou peu rigoureux aurait permis la deformation de certains des grands principes de la discipline. C’est du moins ce qu’affirme Todd Weiler dans son dernier ouvrage, The Interpretation of International Investment Law: Equality, Discrimination and Minimum Standards of Treatment in Historical Context ou il tente de redresser la situation. Diplome de l’Universite du Michigan, l'auteur est conseiller en resolution des differends relatifs a l’investissement et a travaille sur de nombreux cas au cours de sa carriere, dont notamment S.D. Myers v Canada et Pope & Talbot v Canada. Il a aussi ete arbitre a la Cour d’arbitrage internationale de la chambre de commerce de Stockholm, en plus de donner des conferences academiques dans pres d’une dizaine d’etablissements universitaires, dont l’Universite d’Ottawa, la University of Western Ontario, le Chicago-Kent College of Law et la Fletcher School of Law.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".