Making the proceedings public and allowing third-party interventions : are the new generation bilateral investment treaties (U.S., Canada) bifurcating investment arbitration from international commercial arbitration?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Does the new generation of bilaceral investment treaties introduce a new type of arbicration, particularly with respect to more utraditional" comtnercial arhitration?I5 thcre something new in procedural tcrrns?Is there a split between bath types of arbitration, specifically in regard to the publiciry of the proceedings and third-parry intervention?The following remarks are offered with the intent of raising questions which might not, at chis point, all receive clear answers.At the outser it should also be noted that these two topics are closely linked to the debate about a new rype of investment arbitranon.ln a way, they are two faces of the same coin.'" Prof essor and Diceetor of the Oepartment of Public International Law and International Organisation, Faculty of Law.University of GeneV2.The present article is an e.xpanded version of a presentation made at the l!th Geneva Global Arbitration Forum held 1-2 Oecember 2004 in Geneva, Switzer\and.The author would like to thank Mn Olivia Bennaim-Selvi for her help in the: course of the preparation of this contribution.
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 | 0.025 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.033 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".