L'HARMONISATION DU DROIT CANADIEN DE L'ARBITRAGE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL ET LA COORDINATION DES DECISIONS ETATIQUES EN MATIERE D'ARBITRAGE DANS LE CONTEXTE FEDERAL CANADIEN
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to its federal structure, Canada's adhesion in 1986 to the New York Convention of 1958 on the Recognition and Execution of Foreign Awards, as well as the reform of Canadian law on international commercial arbitration could not have taken place without an effort of cooperation between the federal and the provincial governments. This effort resulted in multiple legislations which are all based on the model law proposed by the Commission of the United Nations for the Commercial International Law (UNCITRAL). Common background notwithstanding, this plurality of legislations could hamper one of the most important purposes of the reform : the harmonisation of the rules applicable to this matter. Given the possibility of having contradictory court decisions on international arbitration in the different Canadian jurisdictions, it is important, in the interest of the certainty of the law, to examine if, in which cases, and to what extent could some coordination of these decisions be arrived at.
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 | 0.018 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".