MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1616567016 · doi:10.7202/017649ar

Doha in the Dumps: The Bilateral Option. Whither Canadian Trade Policy

2008· article· en· W1616567016 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
William A. Dymond

Bibliographic record

VenueEurostudia · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsYesterdayNegotiationInternational tradePoliticsSection (typography)Order (exchange)Bilateral tradePolitical scienceInternational economicsEconomicsBusinessFinanceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article takes Canadian trade politics in order to demonstrate that the mixture of multi- and bilateral negotiations is a solution just for yesterday’s problems. First the article provides an account of the present situation of the Doha Development Round. Second it discusses Canada’s interest in bilateral agreements before it analyzes the present conditions for international trade. The final section is dedicated to the political options resulting from that situation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.466

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0190.010
Scholarly communication0.0100.006
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0080.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations2
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEurostudiaSame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207