Case law on equitable maritime delimitation : digest and commentaries = Jurisprudence sur les délimitations maritimes selon l'équité : répertoire et commentaires
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Preface. Introduction. Affaire des Grisbadarna. (Norvege c. Suede). Sentence du 23 octobre 1909. Affairs du Plateau Continental de la Mer du Nord.(Plateau Continental federale d'Allemagne c. Danemark et Republique federale d'Allemagne c. Pays-Bas) Arret du fevrier 1969.Affaire de la Delimitation du Plateau Continental entre le Royaume-Uni et la France. (Royaume-Unie de Grande-Bretagne et d'Irlande du Nord c. Republique francaise) Sentence du 30 juin 1977.Affaire du Differend Frontalier entre Dubai et Sharjah. (Emirat de Dubai c. Emirat de Sharjah) Sentence du 19 octobre 1981.Affaire du Plateau Continental. (Tunisie / Libye) Arret du 24 fevrier 1982.Affaire de la Delimitation de la Frontiere Maritime dans la Region du Golfe du Maine. (Canada / Etats-Unis d'Amerique) Arret du 12 octobre 1984.Affaire de la Delimitation de la Frontiere Maritime entre La Guinee et La Guinee-Bissau. (Republique de Guinee c. Republique de Guinee-Bissau) Sentence du 14 fevrier 1985. Affaire du Plateau Continental. (Libye / Malte) Arret du 3 juin 1985.Affaire de la Delimitation de la Frontiere Maritime entre La Guinee-Bissau et le Senegal(Republique de Guinee-Bissau c. Republique du Senegal) Sentence du 31 juillet 1989.Affaire de la Delimitation des Espaces Martimes entre Le Canada et La France (St. Pierre et Miquelon) (Canada c. Republique francaise) Sentence du 10 juin 1992.Affaire de la Delimitation dans la Region Situee entre Le Groenland et Jan Mayen. (Danemark c. Norvege) Arret du 14 juin 1993.Affaire de la Delimitation Maritime entre L'Erithree et Le Yemen. (Erithree c. Republique du Yemen) Sentence du 17 decembre 1999.Affaire de la Delimitation Maritime et des Questions Territoriales entre Qatar et Bahrein (Fond). Qatar c. Bahrein) Arret du 16 mars 2001.
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 | 0.014 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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".