MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3112256355 · doi:10.29173/alr2620

Dispute Resolution in the Energy Sector: Wither Thou Goest?

2020· article· en· W3112256355 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Ann Ryan Robertson, Elizabeth Whitsitt

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInternational Arbitration and Investment Law
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThouEnergy sectorResolution (logic)Energy (signal processing)Dispute resolutionLaw and economicsLawEconomicsPolitical sciencePhilosophyTheologyComputer scienceNatural resource economicsMathematicsArtificial intelligenceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OpenAlex records an abstract for this work, but it could not be fetched just now.

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.172

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0130.025
Scholarly communication0.0220.025
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0120.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.204 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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