MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1999815923 · doi:10.5539/ies.v2n2p37

WTO Members’ Commitments in Education Services

2009· article· en· W1999815923 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jian Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorld Trade Organization Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarket accessGeneral Agreement on Trade in ServicesInternational tradeMember statesBusinessTrade in servicesScheduleWorld tradeOrder (exchange)International economicsEconomic growthEconomicsFree tradeEuropean unionFinanceManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The establishment of World Trade Organization is in line with the conclusion reached at the end of the Uruguay Round in April 1994 by the bulk of the world’s trading nations. WTO is in charge of managing multilateral trading system. WTO’s “General Agreement on Trade in Services” (GATS) requires member nations to comply with the following basic rules: all member nations equally enjoy Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) treatment; enterprises of other member nations can enjoy equal treatment and market access in one member nation’s territory with its domestic enterprises. GATS includes the general agreement, annex and the schedules of commitments. Schedules of commitments is a sort of document which shows the obligations stimulated in the GATS about market access and national treatment that one WTO member nation will fulfill, or that the obligations that one WTO member nation hopes to be exempted from. When a WTO member nation makes a commitment, it has set legally the standards of market access and national treatment in its schedule of commitments, and will no longer introduce any other measures which will limit the market access and national treatment in trade in education services.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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 score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0100.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0320.017

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.389 · 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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Education Studies→Same topicWorld Trade Organization Law→French-language works237,207→