SWFs, Recent US Legislative Changes, and Treaty Obligations Sovereign Wealth Funds, Recent US Legislative Changes, and Treaty Obligations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A confluence of events has highlighted the role of sovereign wealth funds (SWFs) in recent times, giving rise to debate as to their role, governance, and how national investment regimes view their investments. Important amendments to US investment-screening legislation in 2007 have given rise to some concerns on the part of SWF investors. Apart from national investment-screening laws such as those of the United States and Canada, recipient countries of such funds’ investments may have also international or bilateral treaty obligations towards SWFs as foreign investors. Recent international efforts have also produced some ‘soft law’ instruments to address the governance structures of SWFs and recipient countries’ approaches to their investments. This article provides a composite picture of the recent US amendments, relevant international and bilateral treaty obligations, and the recent ‘soft law’ instruments that together have an impact on SWF investments.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it