MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005607294 · doi:10.7202/042344ar

La Constitution canadienne et la réglementation des relations économiques internationales au sortir du « Tokyo Round »

2005· article· en· W2005607294 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Ivan Bernier

Bibliographic record

VenueLes Cahiers de droit · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstitutionPolitical scienceNational interestNegotiationTariffInternational tradeEconomyEconomicsPoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Following the conclusion of the recent multilateral trade negotiations under the auspices of G.A.T.T. (Tokyo Round), a number of agreements have been concluded in the field of non-tariff measures that may well give, in the future, a new impetus to the exercise of the federal power over "trade and commerce". Indeed, there appears to be a growing tendency, both at the international level and in our constitutional law, to recognize that international economic relations start and end with internal economic considerations. The importance of this development has not escaped the attention of the provinces which, in recent years, have attempted in various ways to promote their interest at the international level, while claiming, at the same time, a greater input in the formulation of the national economic policy. The object of this paper is to take a global look at this development. In conclusion, it suggests that both the federal government and the provinces should accept that international trade regulation, as a subject of national concern, is inseparable from the regulation of the internal economy, and as such should be considered as a question of mutual interest.

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)0.004
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 score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0070.014
Scholarly communication0.0100.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.260 · 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
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLes Cahiers de droitSame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207