Transparency Norms, the World Trade System and Free Trade Agreements: The Case of CETA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada and the European Union (EU) are negotiating an ambitious Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA). While the content of the agreement has not yet been officially disclosed by its negotiators, the general public and the business community are already concerned about the scope and effect of CETA on the two economies and their societies. This article deals with CETA's transparency provisions. It claims that, whereas CETA has not yet utilized external transparency to ensure support for the negotiations, it does have the potential for greater regulatory transparency in technical barriers to trade (TBT)- and sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS)-related matters than that found not only in the existing World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements but also in free trade agreements (FTAs) the two parties previously negotiated with third countries.
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 | 0.030 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".