OHADA, droit de l'arbitrage Etude des missions de l'arbitre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le Traite OHADA du 17 Octobre 1993 tel que modifie a Quebec le 17 Octobre 2008 accorde une place de choix a l'arbitrage.Mais en depit de cette volonte manifeste de le hisser au pinacle des modes de reglement des differends contractuels, l'arbitrage, et avec, l'arbitre restent peu ou mal connus. Si les missions d'un arbitre sportif sont connues et maitrisees, il n'en va pas de meme de celles d'un arbitre de differends contractuels, toute chose de nature a freiner le developpement voulu du continent africain. Face a ce constat, il devenait imperieux d'engager une odyssee cognitive au royaume de l'arbitrage OHADA afin d'analyser les missions d'un de ses principaux seigneurs,l'arbitre. Cette etude qui plonge le lecteur au cœur a la fois de la procedure arbitrale et du statut de l'arbitre procede a un decryptage des missions a la fois originelles et additionnelles de ce dernier. Poursuivant sur les entraves possibles a leur exercice, l'auteur termine sur les consequences de leur inobservation, lesquelles peuvent mener a l'annulation de la sentence,a la responsabilite de l'arbitre ou cumulativement les deux.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.047 | 0.007 |
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".