MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4306839721 · doi:10.5539/jpl.v16n1p1

Importance of Qualitative Addition to the New Arbitration Rules in Settling International Disputes - Experience of the Kingdom of Bahrain International

2022· article· en· W4306839721 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Azab Alaziz Alhashemi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Politics and Law · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInternational Arbitration and Investment Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArbitrationBusinessCommissionInternational arbitrationProcess (computing)Compulsory arbitrationLawLaw and economicsPolitical scienceComputer scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A complete set of procedural rules have been added in the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Arbitration Rules and the parties agree on the application of arbitration procedures developed from this commercial relationship. These laws are widely used in arbitrations conducted by the institutions along with the ad hoc arbitrations. All the aspects of arbitration processes are covered by these rules such as setting out rules of procedure for appointing arbitrators, conducting arbitration proceedings, and modelling arbitration clause. The arbitration process also comprises of rules associated with form, impact, and interpretation of arbitral award. This study aims to investigate the experience of the Kingdom of Bahrain related to the addition of new arbitration rules. A detailed analysis of the newly developed changes has been conducted to provide important propositions. Findings of the study indicate that despite the effectiveness of newly developed changes, a few further amendments are required to increase the flow of international investments in Bahrain by providing the investors with the security they need.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.008
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 venueJournal of Politics and Law→Same topicInternational Arbitration and Investment Law→French-language works237,207→