Bibliographic record
Abstract
The context within which Opinion 2/15 falls is the legitimacy crisis of ISDS and its particular threat to the autonomy of domestic legal and judicial institutions. While, on the face of it, the ECJ seems to have escaped the risks of weighing into the ISDS-legitimacy debate (for now), Opinion 2/15 nonetheless seems to have given Brussels a tremendous opportunity to achieve rapidly-comprehensive new era trade and investment agreements, bypassing hold out problems, at the small price (if indeed it is a price) of dropping ISDS and portfolio investment (indirect investment). Given today’s global political economy, it would be surprising if this opportunity were not seized. My contribution seeks to weigh in on the debate as to what results emanate from Opinion 2/15, by ‘reading between the lines’. In doing so, I come to the conclusion that further changes to the European Union’s involvement in the international investment regime are to be expected going forward, not least because of the recently-requested opinion by Belgium on the Canada-EU Free Trade Agreement.
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 | 0.038 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.053 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".