MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3094429225 · doi:10.1093/jnlids/idaa016

Frivolous and Abuse of Process Claims in Investor–State Arbitration: Can Rules on Cost Allocation Become Solution?

2020· article· en· W3094429225 on OpenAlexaff
Ksenia Polonskaya

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of International Dispute Settlement · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInternational Arbitration and Investment Law
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArbitrationProcess (computing)Ex-anteState (computer science)Law and economicsBusinessEx parteDeterrence theoryEconomicsLawPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The problem of frivolous and abuse of process claims has gained a significant traction in the deliberations of the UNCITRAL Working Group III. In light of this focus, this article examines existing approaches of the arbitral tribunals to identifying frivolous and abuse of process claims and allocating costs for these types of claims. The article reveals inconsistencies in shifting the costs, and concludes that current rules on cost allocation are unlikely to create ex ante deterrence in filing of such claims.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.812
Threshold uncertainty score0.528

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.234 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of International Dispute SettlementSame topicInternational Arbitration and Investment LawFrench-language works237,207