MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2779855906 · doi:10.1093/yiel/yvw057

5. North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Disputes

2015· article· en· W2779855906 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Elaine Kellman

Bibliographic record

VenueYearbook of International Environmental Law · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInternational Arbitration and Investment Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)Free trade agreementNoticePublicityCorporationArbitrationPolitical scienceLawInternational tradeEconomicsBusinessFree trade

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2015, an important decision was issued under Chapter 11 of NAFTA in the case of Clayton/Bilcon v Government of Canada. This decision received a substantial amount of publicity as a result of its potential impact on the future implementation and application of environmental regulations by NAFTA states. Details of this decision are set out in the second section of this review. Although the notice of arbitration filed against Canada in 2014 in the case of JML Heirs LLC and J.M. Longyear LLC v Government of Canada was withdrawn in 2015, other cases that consider the question as to whether, and when, regulations that are allegedly introduced by states to protect environmental goods or aims can fall foul of the provisions of Chapter 11 of NAFTA, continue to progress. In particular, there were procedural developments in the cases of Lone Pine Resources Inc. v Government of Canada, Windstream Energy LLC v Government of Canada, Mercer International Inc. v Government of Canada, and Mesa Power Group LLC v Government of Canada. There were also developments in the long-running dispute of Mobil Investments Inc. and Murphy Oil Corporation v the Government of Canada. These developments are discussed further in the third section of this review.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.928
Threshold uncertainty score0.720

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueYearbook of International Environmental LawSame topicInternational Arbitration and Investment LawFrench-language works237,207