MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1948844352

Extending the Boundaries of WTO Governance

2012· article· en· W1948844352 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lucy Eugene

Bibliographic record

VenueCaribbean dialogue · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorld Trade Organization Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternational tradeFree tradePrincipal (computer security)EconomicsTrade barrierInterpretation (philosophy)Corporate governanceInternational free trade agreementSuccessor cardinalIntellectual propertyEconomic integrationCommercial policyInternational economicsComparative advantageBusinessLaw and economicsPolitical scienceLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The World Trade Organization (WTO), established January, 1995, is the principal multilateral trade regime responsible for the regulation of global trade activity. As the successor organization to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), its elaborated legal structure consists of rules, principles and procedures which provides a code of conduct for Members (States) participation in international economic exchanges. The achievement of trade liberalization in the areas of goods, services and intellectual property, has informed the development of a code which relies on the adoption of market principles, premised on the economic philosophy of free trade and comparative advantage. Indeed, in its functioning, the new rules-based system is primarily concerned with the balancing and assertion of rights and obligations by its Members. Employing a state-to-state framework of governance, the interpretation of its rules by the dispute mechanism seeks to ensure competitive trade opportunities, more so than the promotion of actual trade volumes. Any permitted exceptions allowing for the pursuit of policy objectives (both nationally and internationally), are therefore subject to strict interpretation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.944
Threshold uncertainty score0.542

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.258 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCaribbean dialogueSame topicWorld Trade Organization LawFrench-language works237,207