Bibliographic record
Abstract
The World Trade Organization (WTO) is an anomaly among international organizations in the world today. It is one of the newest of all the international organizations, born less than twenty years ago, yet it has a pedigree going back to the end of World War II. Why has the WTO been viewed with such scepticism by civil society and non-governmental organizations? Did the Uruguay Round negotiators make egregious mistakes by agreeing to extensive, intrusive, international rules on trade in goods, services and intellectual property, and creating a highly legalistic, binding dispute settlement system? Is the WTO now in decline? The WTO’s first ten years seemed to be so brilliant and full of promise. Is it a victim of its own success by expanding the scope of the rules and commitments and its membership too fast? The Uruguay Round negotiators built the WTO Members a house: the WTO, in which they can administer the existing agreements, observe the practices of others, discuss relevant matters, negotiate new agreements and changes to existing agreements, resolve disputes, and cooperate with other international organizations. The WTO faces several major challenges to its continued viability and credibility as an international organization. Is the WTO constitutionally flawed, with decision making and rulemaking systems that do not work for the benefit of all Members? Is its dispute settlement system too strong, and its rulemaking system too weak and ineffective? How can the credibility and legitimacy of the WTO be improved? With the increasing proliferation of PTAs, how can the centrality of the WTO be maintained in the multilateral trading system? Is the WTO a house made of bricks, or straw? It has a strong foundation, but the responsibility lies with the Members to decide whether they want to work together to meet the significant challenges that lie ahead.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 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 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".