MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1910590235 · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511754449.012

Canada - Dairy Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of Dairy Products and the Exportation of Milk

2004· book-chapter· en· W1910590235 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Merit E. Janow, Robert W. Staiger

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2004
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Economics and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExportationAgricultural scienceBusinessMilk productsAgricultural economicsGeographyFood scienceEnvironmental scienceEconomicsMathematicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction This paper summarizes and critically reviews the dispute brought before the World Trade Organization (WTO) concerning Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of Dairy Products and the Exportation of Milk , euphemistically referred to herein as Canada – Dairy . This dispute is centered on the WTO Agricultural Agreement, though it also involves the WTO Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM) Agreement and GATT – 1994. Many analysts have argued that a significant accomplishment of the Uruguay Round of negotiations was the development of a set of rules on agricultural supports, that covered the three main policy instruments of such support: border measures, domestic supports, and export subsidies. The national commitments made as part of the Agreement on Agriculture clearly represented just the beginning of agricultural reform, reflected by the fact that agriculture was earmarked as part of the built-in agenda going forward. It is widely recognized that the agricultural sector is one of the most highly subsidized sectors in the world. Liberalization of trade in agriculture was deemed the “linchpin” of the Uruguay Round for the United States and a number of other jurisdictions. It remains controversial today. Hence, this political and economic backdrop adds a special importance to this dispute. Contextually the dispute is also significant because it brings to light the systemic question of whether the Agriculture Agreement and the SCM Agreement are structured and drafted to strike the proper balance among the support measures, especially when there are spillover consequences of domestic support measures on export markets.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.372

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.157
Teacher spread0.142 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations3
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicAgricultural Economics and PolicyFrench-language works237,207