MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013696089 · doi:10.1093/jiel/jgi051

Planes, Trains and Automobiles: The Impact of the WTO ‘Court’ on Canada in its First Ten Years

2005· article· en· W2013696089 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jacqueline D. Krikorian

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of International Economic Law · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorld Trade Organization Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTribunalScope (computer science)Political scienceLawOrder (exchange)State (computer science)Settlement (finance)Economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Observers interested in the nature and scope of judicial policy-making traditionally focused on the extent to which domestic courts shaped national policy arrangements. With the emergence of more robust international tribunals, however, many are raising questions about the degree to which foreign judges are influencing domestic legal regimes. This project addresses one corner of this debate by analysing the impact of the WTO ‘court’ on Canada. The legal challenges have provoked considerable controversy as the country has lost, either in whole or in part, each case brought against it. Moreover, there has been widespread public concern about these disputes as many have involved significant social issues. Yet despite the country’s successive defeats before the WTO ‘court’, the policy impact of the trade tribunal has been relatively modest. Contrary to suggestions, the WTO dispute settlement mechanism has not superimposed some form of neo-liberal order on the Canadian state via its judicial decision-making process.

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)0.010
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 score0.187
Threshold uncertainty score0.943

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0190.011
Scholarly communication0.0140.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations10
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of International Economic LawSame topicWorld Trade Organization LawFrench-language works237,207