Bibliographic record
Abstract
The worrisome rise in the number of trade disputes relating to climate change policies leaves no doubt as to the relevance of WTO law to climate change policies. Perhaps the most contentious aspect of the relationship between trade law and climate change policies is the issue of subsidies — while many climate change policies rely heavily on the use of subsidies, WTO law considers subsidies a distortive force and aspires to limit the use of such measures. This article evaluates the compatibility of several climate change programs in light of the WTO law on subsidies. It argues that the current legal framework is unsuitable for the promotion of climate change abatement objectives. This is because relevant considerations such as the urgency of the climate change problem, the many market failures embedded in climate-friendly goods and services, and the political reality currently abundant in many states, are entirely disregarded by the WTO law on subsidies. The recent Canada FIT Panel and Appellate Body Reports seem to accept this critique, and consequently present a modified approach to the interaction between the WTO law on subsidies and the climate change challenge. Another promising route of action can be found in the model reflected in an agreement recently concluded between the EU and China, in which, prima facie, the parties decided to include non-commercial considerations as relevant for their own trading relations. These two recent developments may signify a change in the approach towards the interaction between trade law and climate change, as well as a realisation that the current legal framework should be re-evaluated
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 | 0.032 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.029 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.027 | 0.025 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".