Comments on the European Commission’s Approach to Investor-State Arbitration in TTIP and CETA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper provides a detailed response to the European Commission's proposed approach to investor-state arbitration in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). It offers a general response followed by detailed replies to substantive and procedural questions posed by the Commission. Overall, it characterizes the Commission's proposed approach in the TTIP and in the Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) as having taken positive steps to address the lack of openness in investor-state arbitration but as having failed to address the lack of judicial independence, lack of procedural fairness, and lack of balance in the allocation of rights and responsibilities in investor-state arbitration.
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 | 0.057 | 0.129 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.101 | 0.049 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".