Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book interrogates justifications, techniques and legal forms that arose in the past and continue to resonate in the international regime to protect foreign investment. What is striking is how past practices resemble suppositions relied upon at present by investment law’s norm entrepreneurs. This matrix of practices is characterized as ‘alibis’ in so far as they provide cover for a set of international investment law rules and institutions that are increasingly difficult to defend. The method employed conjoins discursive practices with understandings about power, expressed in legal-institutional and processual forms. It is analogous to what Foucault describes as ‘archaeology’ which, when partnered with ‘genealogy,’ produces something akin to dispositif : an ensemble of discourse, institutions, legislation and ‘authoritative phenomena’, incorporating ‘the said as much as the unsaid’. By uncovering investment law’s normative ends, and connecting them to this indefensible past, the book reveals how investment law aims to dampen the political aspirations of states and citizens of the Global South. The object of the book is to imagine new ways forward that are less ruinous to those left outside of investment law’s solicitude.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.479 | 0.295 |
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".