Проблемы института третейского разбирательства в условиях реформирования законодательства о третейских судах
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article we consider the problem of arbitration proceedings and suggest ways to address them. The peculiarities of the arbitration dispute resolution, allowing closer to understanding the nature and the legal nature of the arbitration court. The article analyzes the status of arbitrators in terms of law reform, the conclusion about the absence of common requirements that apply to this post. The attention focused on the absence of liability for breach of arbitrators order arbitration proceedings and the need to introduce. The article also highlights changes in the rights of legal entities to create permanent arbitration courts and analyzes the feasibility of such restrictions. Special attention is paid to the problem of creating pocket courts, which hamper the development of mechanisms for alternative ways of resolving civil disputes. A comparative analysis of established practices of arbitration courts in countries such as Brazil, Canada and the United States has been provided. We offer adding certain provisions of the legislation of these countries to the Russian legislation in order to improve the institution of arbitration proceedings. The authors highlight some trends in the development of the current legislation regulating the activities of the arbitration courts of relevance in today's economy
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.006 |
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".