MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3026391106

Система разрешения экономических споров по праву Канады

2020· article· ru· W3026391106 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Р.А. Курбанов

Bibliographic record

VenueЭКОНОМИКА. ПРАВО. ОБЩЕСТВО · 2020
Typearticle
Languageru
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInternational Arbitration and Investment Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDispute resolutionPolitical scienceSubject matterLawElement (criminal law)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article focuses on the Canadian Law Economic Dispute Review System. This system does not allocate a separate element, the economic dispute resolution subsystem. Canadian courts at all levels resolve disputes of this kind. The Canadian court system is directly dependent on Canada 's administrative-territorial system – the courts are divided into provincial and territorial courts. Since the primary burden of dealing with economic disputes rests with provincial courts and the Tax Court of Canada, the subject matter of the study is limited to those courts.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.890
Threshold uncertainty score0.219

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0290.008

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueЭКОНОМИКА. ПРАВО. ОБЩЕСТВО→Same topicInternational Arbitration and Investment Law→French-language works237,207→