The Middle Distance for the Issue Of interim Relief
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parties to a legal dispute often seek interim measures in order to safeguard their rights pending the final resolution of the dispute. In circumstances where those parties have entered a binding agreement to have their dispute settled by arbitration, the tribunal and the court may share jurisdiction to make such interim orders. It is not always easy to draw a line between the proper jurisdiction of the court to make such orders, and where the court should make room for the tribunal to exercise its own jurisdiction. This difficulty arises as there is a natural tension found between the supervisory and supportive role that courts play to the arbitration process, and the primacy of party consent and autonomy in their agreement to arbitrate, and therefore the arbitral tribunal as the primary decision maker, for resolving the dispute. The article explores judicial approaches taken across various jurisdictions, such as Canada, Hong Kong, Australia, Singapore and the United Kingdom, in determining the extent to which courts should award interim measures both before and after arbitral tribunals are empanelled in a dispute.
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 | 0.024 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.023 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.004 |
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".