MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1500145190 · doi:10.54648/leie2012006

Transparency Norms, the World Trade System and Free Trade Agreements: The Case of CETA

2012· article· en· W1500145190 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueLegal Issues of Economic Integration · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorld Trade Organization Law
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransparency (behavior)International tradeNegotiationBusinessInternational economicsEuropean unionTrade barrierPhytosanitary certificationFree tradeWorld tradeScope (computer science)Technical barriers to tradeEconomicsPolitical scienceEconomic growthLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it