Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The selected cases coming out of Northern North America (Canada and the United States) reveal a judicial predilection to give wide berth to processes facilitating global economic integration. This judicial stance is one associated with hard deference to investment law’s constraints on states. In the case of Canada, courts exhibit a desire to retreat in the face of exercises of the prerogative over foreign affairs exercised by the executive branch. International law is treated as a system distinct and separate from Canada’s constitutional order. The constitutionally mandated duty to consult Aboriginal peoples is not engaged when international treaties, to which Canada is a signatory, are intended to grant to foreign investors the ability to exploit lands upon which Aboriginal peoples claim rights and title. The judicial performance in Canada turns out to be highly formalistic, even as the Supreme Court of Canada touts contextualized analysis in other circumstances. US courts also seem disinterested in constitutional limits associated with investment law, though the cases under discussion in this chapter offer only indirect support for the regime. US courts exhibit a disinclination to impede the progress of international economic affairs in a case concerning the constitutionality of processes (‘fast track’) that ignore constitutional directives for treaty-making. In the case of enforcement of an arbitral award against Argentina, the preference is to elide limits on Argentinian state capacity. What Northern North American courts exhibit is an observable tendency, common to courts situated in capital-exporting states, to prefer economic integration over constitutional objection.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.528 | 0.346 |
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".