Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this Compendium we have encouraged the authors to address both commercial and investment arbitration through the lens of their respective topics. This contribution highlights those areas in which investment arbitration has no or very little analogue with commercial arbitration. It sets out the incontrovertible fact that the state’s presence has certain ramifications.Investment treaty arbitration is ‘arbitration without privity’, in which a state has given its consent in advance to arbitrate a dispute submitted by an unknown (but defined) class of persons about an unknown (but defined) type of claim arising from an unknown (but defined) project. These uncertainties mean that objections to the jurisdiction and admissibility of claims are frequent, indeed almost de rigueur.The notion of applicable law in investment arbitration is complex, involving intersections between public international law and municipal law, between different public international law regimes, and even scrutiny as to whether investment tribunals can themselves develop law.State immunity can hinder the execution of awards. Because of the public interest in arbitral awards, transparency has come to be regarded (at least theoretically) as an essential attribute of investment arbitration. This chapter offers a smorgasbord of some of the most notable particularities of investment arbitration.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".