MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1595379929 · doi:10.22004/ag.econ.46024

Trading Biofuels - Will International Trade Law Be a Constraint?

2005· article· en· W1595379929 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
William A. Kerr, Laura J. Loppacher

Bibliographic record

VenueAgEcon Search (University of Minnesota, USA) · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorld Trade Organization Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiofuelInternational tradeSubsidyBusinessAgricultureAviation biofuelNatural resource economicsTariffMarket accessEconomicsAgricultural economicsIndustrial organizationBioenergyBiotechnologyMarket economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biofuels are increasingly being looked at to spur economic activity in the agricultural sector and to contribute to broader rural development goals while at the same time assisting in the reduction of harmful emissions created by burning petroleum-based fuels. Hence, biofuels appear to be a “win-win” technology that will contribute to achieving a number of important policy goals. As a result, governments around the world have become actively involved in the promotion of this new industry. The industry has expanded rapidly in the last few years but is still in a developmental stage. As the industry matures, biofuel producers will begin to see opportunities in international markets. Canada and the United States have considerable export potential due to their large supply of biomass and technological capacity to convert the biomass into biofuel. This article examines the potential trade issues that could arise when biofuels enter the international market. The issues examined include subsidization, the trade effects of using biotechnology in producing biofuels, market access and tariff classification, and potential technical barriers to trade related to product standards.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgEcon Search (University of Minnesota, USA)Same topicWorld Trade Organization LawFrench-language works237,207