Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This chapter provides a narrative of how investment treaties evolved from older incomplete to recent, more complete agreements that draw heavily from North American treaty practice. The evolution of investment agreements was first marked by a decrease in contractual completeness as more comprehensive Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation treaties fell into disuse, and states started signing short bilateral investment treaties instead. Investment treaty design then evolved toward more completeness in three phases of innovation closely linked to changes in North American treaty practice: (1) in 1982, the United States launched its bilateral investment treaty program and incorporated novel obligations and flexibilities, (2) in 1992, NAFTA was concluded, which pioneered most of the content features associated with a new-generation of investment treaties, and (3) in 2004, the United States and Canada incorporated lessons learned from their experience as respondents in investor-state dispute settlement. These North American content features subsequently spread globally leading to an Americanization of investment treaty design. This only began to change in 2015, when states began exploring alternative gap-filling strategies such as greater emphasis on relational contracting (Brazil) and delegation to a standing tribunal rather than ad hoc arbitration (European Union).
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".