Disciplining Canada’s Interprovincial Barriers: The Subnational WTO Approach as Another Option with or beyond an Extended TILMA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans cet article, j’examine une option, l’« approche infranationale de l’Organisation mondiale du commerce (OMC) », qui, jusqu’à maintenant, n’a pas été prise en compte dans le débat sur une question discutée depuis longtemps au Canada, celle des barrières interprovinciales au commerce. Cette approche se base sur une idée simple: tenter d’établir un accord entre les provinces (et les membres de l’OMC) pour appliquer les disciplines de l’OMC au commerce interprovincial. Cela aurait trois implications. Premièrement, les clauses de la nation la plus favorisée et du traitement national, ainsi que le processus de règlement des différends, utilisés par l’OMC, s’appliqueraient au commerce interprovincial des biens et services, sur la base de l’Accord général sur les tarifs douaniers et le commerce de 1994. Deuxièmement, le cadre de l’Accord général sur commerce des services permettrait de formuler les engagements à être souscrits, y compris sur la mobilité de la main-d’œuvre selon le mode 4. Enfin, tous les autres accords de l’OMC, comme l’Accord sur les subventions et les mesures compensatoires, s’appliqueraient également aux provinces.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
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".