The 2021 Canadian Model FIPA: More Than Meets the Eye
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When Canada made public its new Model Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA) in May 2021,3 17 years had passed since it published its last official Model in May 2004.4 Much had happened since the lessons learned of the early 2000s, especially in the context of Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA),5 but also in International Investment Law more broadly, including increasing criticisms of traditional investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS). This is not to say that Canadian bilateral investment treaty (BIT) practice did not evolve in the meantime, since internal revisions were known to have taken place namely in 2007 and 2012, and innovations could be seen in recent FIPAs.6 But, by 2018, a more comprehensive review was afoot. Another important part of the context of course was that Canada was now a party to a number of regional economic agreements, including the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) with the European Union,7 the 11-member Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP)8 and the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement (CUSMA),9 each containing a different approach to the resolution of investor-State disputes. Canada having signed on to a judicialized model in CETA,10 and improved ISDS in CPTPP,11 but not to ISDS between itself and the US in CUSMA,12 one might have wondered what approach Canada would adopt in its new Model. Yet, the documents used in the 2018 consultation process made clear that ISDS is an integral part of Canada’s FIPA programme and the task at hand would be to improve on it, in terms of transparency, fairness, efficiency, accessibility, and consistency (at least pending the potential future establishment of a multilateral investment court (MIC)).13
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".