Bibliographic record
Abstract
The regional integration agreements can be a strategy of trade diversion and thus we can say that there is a violation of the rules of free trade. By creating preferential rules which are inconsistent with the principles of the WTO, the strategy of regional integration can increase the risk of trade disputes with third party countries and can therefore generate a commercial environment full of threats and reprisals. Third countries, especially developing countries have small markets, may find themselves marginalized further when the members of the regional group adopt the principle of discrimination. The philosophy of the WTO paves the way for a transition from regional integration towards a multilateral integration. The question that arises is whether regional integration agreements meet this conception of the WTO or they represent a new form of protectionism hindering free trade. We know that the regional groups hold private information about the actions and decisions they adopt in the intra-group. The uncertainty and hidden information can cause conflicts internationally. The WTO, we can assume as the Principal, should create incentives that can guide regional groups that can be assumed as Peripheral Agents, to comply with Article XXIV and the elimination of regional protectionism. Control actions and trade policies of regional groups should be done on a regular basis to make the game of international trade more fair.
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 | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".