MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110075954 · doi:10.1111/1467-9701.00562

Trade Remedy Actions in NAFTA: Agriculture and Agri‐Food Industries

2003· article· en· W2110075954 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

VenueWorld Economy · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorld Trade Organization Law
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternational tradeDutyDumpingAgricultureOpposition (politics)PoliticsInternational economicsFree tradeEconomicsRules of originBusinessLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The economic rationale for trade remedy law, while always weak, is undermined by the formation of free trade areas. However, due to political pressure, first CUSFTA and then NAFTA have continued the use of domestic antidumping and countervailing duty laws. With the lowering of border protection, it was feared that there would be an explosion of trade remedy law as NAFTA was implemented. This article examines data on the use of anti‐dumping and countervailing duty investigations in agriculture, and analyses the incidence between NAFTA partners before and after the implementation of free trade, and compared to the incidence with other countries. Given the cost of current AD and CVD suits, options are explored for alternative methods to resolve AD and CVD suits. Evaluation of options hinges on goals held for dispute resolution within NAFTA. Given continued political opposition to eliminating AD and CVD processes, increasing the options for resolving these suits may reduce their overall costs.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.219 · 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