MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406189698 · doi:10.18272/rea.i1.3625

Diez años de Merck: una década de evolución del arbitraje internacional en Colombia

2009· article· es· W4406189698 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Eduardo Zuleta Jaramillo, Alberto Zuleta Londoño

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Ecuatoriana de Arbitraje · 2009
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInternational Arbitration and Investment Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hace una década la Corte Suprema de Justicia de Colombia resolvió negativamente una solicitud de exequátur presentada por los apoderados de tres sociedades extranjeras: (i) Merck y Co Inc.; (ii) Merck Frosst Canada Inc.; y (iii) Frosst Laboratories Inc. El objeto de la solicitud de exequátur era un "Laudo Interlocutorio Respecto de la Jurisdicción del Tribunal de Arbitramento", dictado por un tribunal de arbitramento internacional administrado por la Cámara de Comercio Internacional ("CCI") y cuya sede era la ciudad de Newark, estado de Nueva Jersey, Estados Unidos de América. Las partes demandantes en el arbitraje que dio origen al laudo eran las tres sociedades mencionadas (a las que nos referiremos colectivamente como las "Compañías Merck") y la demandada una sociedad colombiana, Tecnoquímicas S.A. ("Tecnoquímicas"). Esa decisión de la Corte Suprema y las controversias jurídicas que la rodearon moldearon gran parte de las instituciones jurídicas que sirven de fundamento para el arbitraje comercial internacional en Colombia. Muchos de sus efectos continúan vigentes hoy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.516
Threshold uncertainty score0.974

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.007
Scholarly communication0.0130.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0050.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista Ecuatoriana de ArbitrajeSame topicInternational Arbitration and Investment LawFrench-language works237,207