MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W30795020 · doi:10.29173/alr397

A Canadian Commentary on Constructive Expropriation Law Under NAFTA Article 1110

2015· article· en· W30795020 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Raymond Young

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInternational Arbitration and Investment Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExpropriationContext (archaeology)LawConstitutionExposition (narrative)ConstructiveEconomicsCompensation (psychology)State (computer science)Law and economicsCommon lawPolitical scienceHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

By virtue of the Constitution Act, 1982. Canada has established that some rights andfreedoms are beyond the reach ofgovernment. However, the protection of properly, especially with regard to the guaranteeing of compensation ifproperty is taken by the state, has not been elevated to this same level of constitutional protection. This article examines regulatory takings claims under Article 1110 ofthe North American Free Trade Agreement and provides an exposition of the law insofar as it has developed in the NAFTA context. It begins with a survey of constructive takings in international and domestic U.S. law and concludes by highlighting the obvious differences between the protection afforded to foreign NAFTA investors in Canada and domestic owners of properly when property is taken.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.150
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0200.017
Scholarly communication0.0130.003
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0190.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.221 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations15
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Law ReviewSame topicInternational Arbitration and Investment LawFrench-language works237,207