Barriers to International Trade in Procurement after the Economic Crisis, Part II: Opening International Procurement Markets: Unfinished Business
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper, presented at the West Government Contracts Year in Review Conference (covering 2010), discusses developing issues in international public procurement. Among other things, the paper suggests that, in 2010, the international procurement market continued to mature, as cross-border barriers to trade continue to fall. Large developing nations - including China and, potentially, India - moved to join the World Trade Organization (WTO) Government Procurement Agreement (GPA), the leading instrument for opening procurement markets. In the United States, while open issues remained regarding how to ensure that the United States meets its own free-trade obligations in procurement, the United States and Canada were able to reach a compromise on U.S. - Canadian procurement purchasing that may open the way for future agreement. That thaw in international procurement markets was in contrast, though, to a new U.S. tax on foreign contractors selling to the U.S. government who fall outside the protection of the GPA and other agreements. More broadly, there was a growing international trend in favor of unified defense-civilian procurement, bolstered by a recent European directive on defense procurement. Freer trade in defense procurement may, however, be affected by efforts to ensure security of supply (including efforts in Europe and the United States) - an area where comparison between the two systems may be useful, as the debate over protecting “critical materials” in the U.S. system is rapidly advancing.
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 | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".