Bibliographic record
Abstract
The most contentious international trade issues currently arise not from traditional producer requests for protection, but as a result of consumers and other economic agents asking governments to erect trade barriers. The economic model that underpins multilateral trade policy—as manifest in World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements—only predicts that firms will lobby for protection, with no provisions for how governments faced with requests for protection from other groups can respond. Consequently, governments have been forced to defend the imposition of trade barriers using spurious justifications; the WTO dispute mechanism has largely dismissed these justifications, and consumers (and others) feel disenfranchised. The result has been a loss of credibility for the WTO and sometimes its demonization. The WTO needs to change but a new economic model must also be developed to deal with a broader spectrum of protectionist interests. À l'heure actuelle, les questions de commerce international les plus litigieuses ne sont pas alimentées par des producteurs traditionnels qui demandent des mesures protectionnistes, mais plutôt par des consommateurs et d'autres agents économiques qui demandent que les États érigent des barrières commerciales. Le modèle économique à la base de la politique commerciale multilatérale – manifeste dans les accords de l'Organisation mondiale du commerce (OMC) – prévoit seulement que les entreprises exerceront des pressions protectionnistes, sans disposition sur la réaction possible des États qui sont confrontés à des demandes de protectionnisme provenant d'autres groupes. En conséquence, les États ont été forcés de défendre l'imposition de barrières commerciales en utilisant de fausses justifications. Le mécanisme de règlement des différends de l'OMC a en grande partie rejeté ces justifications, et les consommateurs (et autres agents économiques) se sentent privés de leurs droits. L'OMC a ainsi perdu de sa crédibilité et est parfois diabolisée. L'OMC doit être revue, mais il faut également élaborer un nouveau modèle économique pour tenir compte d'un large éventail d'intérêts protectionnistes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".