Diez años de Merck: Una década de evolución del arbitraje comercial internacional en Colombia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IntroducciónHace una década la Corte Suprema de Justicia de Colombia resolvió negativamente una solicitud de exequátur presentada por los apoderados de tres sociedades extranjeras: (i) Merck y Co Inc.; (ii) Merck Frosst Canada Inc.; y (iii) Frosst Laboratories Inc. El objeto de la solicitud de exequátur era un "Laudo Interlocutorio Respecto de la Jurisdicción del Tribunal de Arbitramento", dictado por un tribunal de arbitramento internacional administrado por la Cámara de Comercio Internacional ("CCI") y cuya sede era la ciudad de Newark, estado de Nueva Jersey, Estados Unidos de América.Las partes demandantes en el arbitraje que dio origen al laudo eran las tres sociedades mencionadas (a las que nos referiremos colectivamente como las "Compañías Merck") y la demandada una sociedad colombiana, Tecnoquímicas S.A. ("Tecnoquímicas").Esa decisión de la Corte Suprema y las controversias jurídicas que la rodearon moldearon gran parte de las instituciones jurídicas que sirven de fundamento para el arbitraje comercial internacional en Colombia.Muchos de sus efectos continúan vigentes hoy.El presente artículo examina en detalle las decisiones que se adoptaron en Colombia y el exterior a raíz del la controversia entre las Compañías Merck y Tecnoquímicas (en adelante, globalmente considerado, el "Caso Merck").En primer lugar se 1.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".