MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094696259 · doi:10.1093/jielaw/jgi008

Climate Change, Regulatory Policy and the WTO: How Constraining are Trade Rules?

2005· article· en· W2094696259 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorld Trade Organization Law
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScope (computer science)Climate changeInternational tradeAction (physics)International economicsBusinessClimate policyPolitical sciencePublic economicsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Climate change has come to be seen as a major global environmental challenge. This paper examines the extent to which WTO rules constrain countries' ability to address climate change through domestic regulatory policies such as standards, labels, voluntary agreements and domestic emissions trading programs. In particular, it examines three broad types of constraints. First, it discusses the extent to which domestic regulatory measures may conflict with national treatment provisions of GATT and the Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement. Second, it discusses procedural constraints on domestic regulatory action, including from requirements related to scientific evidence. Finally, it discusses the "necessity" or least restrictive means tests under GATT and the TBT Agreement. The paper argues that existing WTO rules provide members with some scope to take action on climate change. However, they do constrain domestic regulatory policy and the debate about future institutional changes will be central to how effectively global environmental issues such as climate change will be addressed.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.937
Threshold uncertainty score0.436

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.295 · 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