Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Seattle debacle has spawned questions about reforming the World Trade Organization (WTO). While the WTO may be experiencing a crisis of legitimacy, the author contends that pushing for its reform is the wrong agenda. Perhaps the superbody is simply beyond reform because it is fundamentally flawed. The WTO was conceived to protect the interests of the United States and is in no way helping the less industrialized countries to develop. The anti-development character of the WTO is manifested in the Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMS) and Agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), among others. In making decisions that are of global effect the WTO takes the vote of only the United States, Japan, the European Union and Canada. An organization that is meant to institutionalize and legitimize inequality cannot be reformed. Instead of seeking changes that may inevitably strengthen the WTO, developing countries and international civil society must strive to radically reduce the power of the WTO and make it simply another international institution that can play by the rules.
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 | 0.044 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.023 | 0.028 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".