MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2943028674 · doi:10.1002/alt.21789

Time‐Bar Defenses in Enforcement Proceedings: Analyzing the <i>Rusoro</i> Decision by the Paris Court of Appeals

2019· article· en· W2943028674 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Pierre F. de Ravel d'Esclapon

Bibliographic record

VenueAlternatives to the High Cost of Litigation · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInternational Arbitration and Investment Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConciliationArbitrationInvestment (military)LawTreatyConventionEnforcementPolitical scienceSettlement (finance)BusinessPoliticsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Venezuela's 2011 nationalization of its gold‐mining industry resulted in three arbitral awards, all grounded in the Canada‐Venezuela Bilateral Investment Treaty and rendered by tribunals constituted according the ICSID Additional Facility, a set of arbitration, conciliation and fact‐finding rules for parties that fall outside of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes' Convention.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.247
Threshold uncertainty score0.491

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0120.008
Scholarly communication0.0180.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0070.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.227 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlternatives to the High Cost of LitigationSame topicInternational Arbitration and Investment LawFrench-language works237,207