William W. (Rusty) Park, General Editor, <i>Arbitration International</i> 2006–2022
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Just under a year ago, William W. (Rusty) Park asked Ruth Teitelbaum and me to succeed him as co-general editors of Arbitration International. We were pleased and honoured to accept, even as we recognized the challenges inherent in succeeding someone who had led the journal so ably for the past 17 years. One of our first thoughts was how to mark Rusty’s contributions to this journal and by extension to the entire arbitration community, which relies on and relishes the articles found in the distinctive orange-coloured volumes that grace the shelves of so many libraries and arbitration specialists. Because Arbitration International flourished under Rusty’s stewardship, we decided a perfect tribute to him would be to publish a special edition of contributions written by his many friends, admirers, and co-arbitrators—indeed, in many instances, the authors below would place themselves in all three categories. John Townsend, Rusty’s friend since they were together at Yale College, agreed immediately to co-lead the endeavour. In the hope of creating a volume that could be presented to Rusty at Tylney Hall in September 2023, we gave the invited authors a rather strict deadline—something a bit unusual in the publishing world, but essential if we were going to be able to present the volume to him at that event, so fitting given the connection between the London Court of International Arbitration and Arbitration International. Notwithstanding their many other commitments, nearly everyone we invited said yes with alacrity and even enthusiasm. We offered the authors great freedom to choose their preferred offering, and they embraced that flexibility by presenting a wide variety of contributions. The pieces that follow range from personal reminiscences to full-fledged scholarly masterpieces, with many offerings including both the personal and the professional, the witty and the wise; all fitting tributes to someone whose fund of perfect stories—usually humorous; always à propos—seems never to be exhausted.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.052 | 0.049 |
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".