Bibliographic record
Abstract
The dispute settlement system of the WTO was faced with major challenges in its first few years. It has functioned very well in spite of serious pressures from the sheer number of cases that were brought; the increasing complexity and economic significance of disputes; the strict,short timeframes for each step in the dispute settlement process; and a shortage of adequately trained resources. Despite political challenges, the record of compliance for WTO disputes has been good. It is undeniable that there is a growing 'juridification' taking place within the WTO dispute settlement system. A respected clarification process, governed by the principles of due process and procedural fairness, is fundamental to ensuring and maintaining the legitimacy of the WTO as an international rules-based system. The recognition that the WTO is a system of law is critical to preserving its nature as a rules-based international system.
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 | 0.013 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.006 |
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".