MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3116271033 · doi:10.1163/24689017_00401005

Comparative Analysis between the 2018 and 2004 Dutch Model Bilateral Investment Treaty Texts

2019· article· en· W3116271033 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Adam Marios Paschalidis, Nikos Lavranos

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Investment Law and Arbitration Review Online · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInternational Arbitration and Investment Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTreatyInvestment (military)Free trade agreementState (computer science)Member stateInternational tradeEuropean unionBacklashSettlement (finance)CommissionMember statesEuropean commissionPolitical scienceInvestor-state dispute settlementInternational economicsEconomicsBusinessFree tradeLawForeign direct investmentInternational investmentFinanceEngineeringComputer sciencePolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article compares the recently published 2018 Dutch model bilateral investment treaty text (2018 Model bit) and the former 2004 version. The changes to the 2018 Model BIT reflect the reaction by European Union (EU) Member States to the increasing number of investor-state disputes against them, the general backlash against free trade agreements ( FTA ), and the CJEU’S decision in Achmea . Furthermore, the drafters of the new Dutch Model bit carefully took into consideration the framework of the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement ( CETA ) and the European Commission’s proposal for the establishment of an Investment Court System ( ICS ) as a substitute for the current investor-state dispute settlement system ( ISDS ). As a result, the 2018 text incorporates significantly stricter provisions than the ones of the former version.

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)0.001
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score0.883

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.237 · 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
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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Investment Law and Arbitration Review OnlineSame topicInternational Arbitration and Investment LawFrench-language works237,207