MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2527426770 · doi:10.7202/1069149ar

LES LIMITES DE L’OBLIGATION DE MOTIVATION : DE LA CONCISION DES SENTENCES ARBITRALES

2020· article· fr· W2527426770 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Romain Dupeyré

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue québécoise de droit international · 2020
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicLaw, logistics, and international trade
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObligationHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’obligation de motivation des sentences arbitrales a fait l’objet d’une reconnaissance quasi universelle en droit positif. L’étendue de cette obligation n’est toutefois pas fixée et elle a parfois été comprise comme exigeant une démonstration détaillée de toutes les étapes de la procédure ainsi que l’analyse de l’ensemble des arguments de fait et de droit des parties. L’obligation de motivation a donc contribué, parallèlement à la multiplication des soumissions par les parties, à l’allongement progressif des sentences sans que cela soit toujours justifié ou souhaitable.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.065
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 score0.121

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.065
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.023
Scholarly communication0.0100.024
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0040.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.217 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue québécoise de droit internationalSame topicLaw, logistics, and international tradeFrench-language works237,207