Introduction to Symposium: Alternative Dispute Resolution in Canada-United States Trade Relations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) movement in law arose domestically as the pressures on our court system threatened to deprive individual citizens of their "day in court." Maine is a leader in the development and elaboration of the principles and practicalities that must be mastered for ADR mechanisms to function. The University of Maine School of Law symposium examining the application of ADR principles to international disputes focuses specifically on the trade relationship between the United States and Canada. But its examination of both the innovations and limitations of ADR to the resolution of international disputes is broader than this single relationship. It is an important pioneering step in developing the legal and policy background we must have to perfect and invent the kinds of international systems that our world will need. The symposium makes clear that what is needed is both to improve existing systems and to invent new ones. In a discussion with wide application, it sets forth some of the fundamental questions of principle and matters of fact that policymakers and private parties alike will have to consider, whether their goals are profitable trade or stable political relationships. Part I of the Symposium consists of a colloquy addressing, in general, alternative dispute resolution in international trade and business. Part II consists of conference papers addressing alternative dispute resolution primarily in the context of Canada-United States trade relations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.004 |
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".