MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4412274646

Reflections on the Philippines/China Arbitration:Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility

2016· article· en· W4412274646 on OpenAlexaff
Yoshifumi Tanaka

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInternational Arbitration and Investment Law
Canadian institutionsInstitute on Governance
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArbitrationJurisdictionChinaLawPolitical scienceLaw and economicsEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The South China Sea dispute between the Philippines and China can be viewed as a mixed dispute that involves both territorial and maritime issues. In this regard, an issue arises concerning whether an Annex vii Arbitral Tribunal under the un Convention on the Law of the Sea can adjudicate a mixed dispute. The Philippines/China arbitral award of 29 October 2015, along with the 2015 Mauritius/United Kingdom arbitration, sheds some light on this issue. Furthermore, with regard to Article 281 of the Convention, the Tribunal in the Philippines/China arbitration adopted an interpretation that is different from the interpretation adopted by the Annex vii Arbitral Tribunal in the 2000 Southern Bluefin Tuna arbitration. The Philippines/China arbitral award provides important insight into the interpretation of Article 281. In addition, the Tribunal’s treatment of China’s informal communications merits particular attention.

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)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.162
Threshold uncertainty score0.321

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0130.038
Scholarly communication0.0200.016
Open science0.0060.011
Research integrity0.0240.040
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.001

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.230 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations18
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueResearch at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen)→Same topicInternational Arbitration and Investment Law→French-language works237,207→