The WTO Ministerial Conference, Hong Kong, December 2005
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This Information Bulletin provides an Alberta perspective and assessment of the results and prospects of the current Doha Development Round of the WTO in the wake of the December 2005 Ministerial Meeting in Hong Kong. The outcomes at Doha were modest but worthy of attention since Alberta’s economy depends so much upon international trade. Anderson concludes that the strong emphasis on agriculture and development distracted from possible progress on reducing other tariffs; and domestic politics, and the relationship between the US and EU meant progress was hard to come by. Veeman looks at the agricultural negotiations and contends that achievements were modest and the goal of phasing out agricultural subsidies by 2013 is less than ambitious. Reif, in analyzing the legal implications of the Ministerial Conference, concluded that substantial legislative changes to the WTO agreements will be required and much remains to be negotiated. The Mirus paper examines the implications for non-agricultural market access (NAMA) and trade in services. He finds that the Hong Kong negotiations brought no concrete results on services and, that in Alberta, progress on NAMA will primarily affect processed raw materials.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.038 | 0.011 |
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".