MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2539764889 · doi:10.5539/jpl.v9n9p205

Exportation of Interim Order by the Arbitrator with an Approach to the Civil Procedure Code

2016· article· en· W2539764889 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Malihe Khaleghi Moghaddam, Maryam Afshari

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Politics and Law · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicLaw, logistics, and international trade
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArbitrationLawInterimPolitical scienceCivil codeCivil procedureOrder (exchange)LegislatureLegislatorExportationBusinessComputer scienceLegislation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Arbitration is as old as human history, and disagreements between people can be resolved through arbitration thousands of years before the judicial institutions can be formed in their very primary form. Gradually communities were established growing, and it would be necessary to be approved various laws and prosperity in the field of arbitration. In this regard, Iranian legislator was discussed arbitration issue, in one of his legislative actions on April ninth of two thousand during approval of the Civil Procedure Code and in its seventh, but surprisingly in this law is not only considered notable authority to judge, but there was also silence regarding the authority interim command exportation by arbitrator. On this basis of the aforementioned attributes and aims to improve of arbitration process in the rights of Iran, we try to review and analyze authority issue interim command up to a clear possibility of issuing a temporary order by the ship's helm justice, in accordance with the provisions of our 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 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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.014
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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 venueJournal of Politics and LawSame topicLaw, logistics, and international tradeFrench-language works237,207