MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4289884051 · doi:10.1163/9789004507388_020

An ISA Side Issue

2022· book-chapter· en· W4289884051 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ted L. McDorman

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicInternational Maritime Law Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConventionPaymentPolitical scienceContinental shelfState (computer science)United Nations Convention on the Law of the SeaGeographyLawOceanographyBusinessFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Somewhat buried in Part VI, “Continental Shelf”, of the 1982 United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea, article 82(1) sets out that: “The coastal State shall make payments or contributions in kind in respect of the exploitation of the non-living resources of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles….” Article 82 (4) directs that: “The payments and contributions shall be made through the Authority, which shall distribute them to States Parties to the Convention, on the basis of equitable sharing….” To date, there has not been any commercial exploitation of the non-living resources of shelf beyond 200 nautical miles, meaning that no payments have been made or become due pursuant to article 82. There have been a number of workshops that have looked at article 82, including one sponsored by ISA, held in Beijing. There have also been a number of reports commissioned and issued by ISA. While still some period off, given the current exploratory activity adjacent to Canada’s Atlantic coast, Canada is highly likely to be the first State to be directly engaged with article 82. As recently as July 2018, Canadian media ran stories on “footing the bill” for these payments. This paper will focus on the role(s) of ISA as regards article 82.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.291

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0090.006
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0080.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0870.040

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInternational Maritime Law IssuesFrench-language works237,207