Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is a rare moment in the professional life of a Journal Editor when everything seems to fall into place.In the case of this Journal Editor, this means that the selected submissions for the current issue deal with a range of diverse dispute resolution topics.Specifically, the issue includes articles on international commercial arbitration, for example Srishti Kumar's comparative analysis of transparency and confidentiality; articles on investment treaty arbitration, for example Felisa Baena's review of recent ICSID awards on valuation of 'non-operational projects'; articles on construction arbitration, for example Bwalya Lumbwe's investigation of the claims and dispute referral procedures under the latest FIDIC 2017 Edition of Contracts; and articles on conflicts of laws, for example Michael Kern's analysis of the relevance of Rome I Regulation for international arbitration.Further, the issue includes not only topics of practical importance, for example the proposal put forward by Lal, Casey, Kaiding and Defranchi on the appropriate remedies against abuse of document production, and Peter Ashford's review of arbitrators' powers to disqualify counsel and experts; but also analytical articles dealing with complex concepts, for example Janet Walker's review of the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Heller v Uber examining issues of procedural arbitrability, and Bankole Sodipo's discussion of non-disclosure and allegations of bias.The issue finally includes James Clanchy's interesting conference paper defending the importance of ad hoc arbitration.It has been a key editorial goal for this Journal to expand its scope and publish articles of international interest that address both theoretical and practical issues from a wide range of dispute resolution sub-fields.While the Journal is also keen to include submissions from other fields of dispute resolution, chiefly on mediation, this issue brings us closer to achieving our goal.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".