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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Volume 13 of Congress Series, Arbitration 2006: Back to Basics?, contains the proceedings of the 13th ICCA Congress held in Montreal in 2006, where international commercial arbitration specialists from around the world gathered to glean fresh insights on fundamental issues, focusing on three central themes. The Reports and Commentary presented in Working Group A of the Congress concentrate on Re-examining the Arbitration Agreement.Leading experts explore crucial topics, including: the autonomy of the arbitration agreement; the arbitrators jurisdiction to determine jurisdiction; the law applicable to the arbitration agreement; and Treaties as agreements to arbitrate. Working Group B sessions examine Contemporary Practice in the Conduct of Proceedings and cover procedural aspects in Round Tables on: fact testimony; document production; the effective use of legal and technical experts; and Oral Argument and in Reports and Commentary on: Arbitral Provisional Measures: The Actual Practice; and Evidentiary Privileges. The volume concludes with the papers generated from the Congress' Plenary Session on Commercial Arbitration and Transnational Public Policy and Treaty Arbitration and International Law.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.018 |
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 it