Is Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement the Threshold of Sustainable Development for Taiwan’s Industries?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Taiwan and the PRC signed the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) on 29th June, 2010. From 2008 to 2013, while the two parties were signing ECFA, Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) and Association for Relations across the Taiwan Straits (ARATS) discontinuously held nine meetings in total and signed nineteen agreements and one mutual declaration. The key points which influence the sustainable development of Taiwan’s industries are the early harvest list and the agreement on servicing trade markets on both sides, and the related standard of cooperation with financial institutions. Except from the clauses in ECFA, the most important appendixes are Enclosure No.1, “Early Harvest List of Products Trade and Tariff Reduction Arrangement”, Enclosure No.3, “Dual-side Defensive Measures on Early Harvest Products”, and Enclosure No.4, “Servicing Trade on Early Harvest and Open Measures”. The appendixes explain specific agreements and norms on the opening of cross-strait trading. This article is an analysis of the clauses and appendixes of ECFA, for understanding if ECFA is a beginning step of sustainable development for Taiwan’s industries.
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 | 0.010 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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".