MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Offshore ‘Firewalls’

2025· book-chapter· en· W4417465840 on OpenAlex
Adam S. Hofri‐Winogradow, Sara Adami-Johnson

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2025
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicBorder Security and International Relations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnforcementNormativeLegislationLaw enforcement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Firewalls are legislated norms barring recognition and enforcement of rights under the laws of foreign jurisdictions and decisions of foreign courts. Thirty offshore jurisdictions enacted firewalls to attract trust parties, actual and prospective, to choose their laws to govern trusts they create by bolstering the protection those laws accord from rights under foreign laws and foreign judicial decisions. We compare those 30 firewalls, which differ along many dimensions. We then discuss the many problems firewalls raise, from the normative issue of firewalls being used to render meritorious claims unenforceable to the practical one of firewalls making the operation of international trusts, which requires the cooperation of two or more jurisdictions’ courts, more difficult. We offer some solutions to these and other problems.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score0.836

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.224 · 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