MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3159248349 · doi:10.1017/cyl.2021.1

The Scope of Compulsory Jurisdiction and Exceptions Thereto under the<i>United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea</i>

2021· article· en· W3159248349 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bjørn Kunoy

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Yearbook of international Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicInternational Maritime Law Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnited Nations Convention on the Law of the SeaJurisdictionLawPolitical scienceMaritime boundaryScope (computer science)Settlement (finance)Law of the seaArbitrationConventionJurisprudenceInternational lawExclusive economic zoneTerritorial disputeMunicipal lawBusinessPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The establishment of a compulsory dispute settlement mechanism in theUnited Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea(UNCLOS) is intended to be the guarantor of the proper application of the convention. Yet the decisions of courts and tribunals seized pursuant to the procedures under Section 2 of Part XV ofUNCLOSare in many regards difficult to reconcile and in some regards unable to form the basis for ajurisprudence constante.This article examines on an empirical basis the scope and limits of the compulsory dispute settlement mechanism underUNCLOS, as applied by international courts and tribunals during a period of twenty years since the first decision in theSouthern Bluefin Tunacase until the recent decision on preliminary objections in theDispute Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between Mauritius and Maldives in the Indian Ocean.

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.055
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.129

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.055
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.014
Scholarly communication0.0120.005
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.211
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
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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Yearbook of international Law/Annuaire canadien de droit internationalSame topicInternational Maritime Law IssuesFrench-language works237,207