MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3122160284 · doi:10.1163/22119000-01504008

Umbrella Clauses and Transfer Provisions in the (Invisible) EU Model BIT

2014· article· en· W3122160284 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anna De Luca

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of World Investment & Trade · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInternational Arbitration and Investment Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJurisprudenceInvestment (military)NegotiationEuropean unionScope (computer science)Member statesArbitrationInclusion (mineral)Arbitration clauseTransatlantic Trade and Investment PartnershipPolitical scienceMember stateInternational tradeInvestment protectionPaymentLaw and economicsBusinessLawEconomicsForeign direct investmentInternational investmentCompulsory arbitrationSociologyFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The draft Investment Chapter of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (ceta) between the European Union (eu) and Canada includes an umbrella clause, on eu’s proposal. Nevertheless, the inclusion in the final text of such a clause appears to be uncertain. Furthermore, the wording of the umbrella clause, proposed by the eu, fails to address all uncertainties regarding the effects and scope of application of umbrella clauses still existing in jurisprudence. Conversely, the inclusion in the draft Investment Chapter of a transfer provision, accompanied with safeguard provisions in case of serious balance-of-payments difficulties and external financial difficulties, does not seem to be a contested issue between the Member States and Canada. A new development at the eu level might make investment protection matters more complicated: following the opening of the negotiation on a free trade agreement with the us, some Member States (such as Germany) oppose investment arbitration tout court at least in the prospective eu-us ceta.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.010
Scholarly communication0.0120.012
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0100.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.003

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 head0.238
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of World Investment & TradeSame topicInternational Arbitration and Investment LawFrench-language works237,207