MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2887462345 · doi:10.5539/ilr.v7n1p247

Entitlement to Islands, Rocks and Low – Tide Elevations in the South China Sea: Geoeconomics versus Rule of Law

2018· article· en· W2887462345 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Solomon E. Salako

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Law Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicInternational Maritime Law Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLiverpool Hope University
KeywordsEntitlement (fair division)ChinaUnited Nations Convention on the Law of the SeaExclusive economic zonePolitical scienceGeographyLawTerritorial watersInternational lawEconomyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Entitlement to islands, rocks and low-tide elevations in the South China Sea is based either on historical claims under customary international law or on maritime claims under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 (UNCLOS). China’s ‘entitlement’ to islands, rocks and low-tide elevations in the South China Sea is based on historical claims spanning over two thousand years. However, there are other littoral claimants such as Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietman and Japan, and what is more, the United States is implicated in Japan’s claim for historical and other reasons. The objects of this article are to evaluate the rule of law and geoeconomics in claims to islands, rocks and low-tide elevations in the South China Sea, especially the Philippines-China arbitration; to show that the historical and maritime claims intersect and collide; to evaluate the United States’ involvement and the Thucydides trap; and to articulate the reasons why geoeconomics should guide not only the interpretation of UNCLOS but also state responses in terms of joint development and unilateral strategies.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.896
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.316 · 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.

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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Law ResearchSame topicInternational Maritime Law IssuesFrench-language works237,207