Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the Uruguay Round (UR), regulations concerning subsidies were substantially modified. In the WTO three types of subsidies are distinguished: prohibited, actionable and non-actionable. The export subsidies are prohibited, while production subsidies are actionable, if they cause an injury to the domestic industry. The remaining subsidies are considered to be non-actionable. This categorization reflects standard theory: distortion in international trade caused by an export subsidy is stronger than that caused by a production one. The number of notifications of countervailing (CVD) duties is quite small, in comparison with A-D actions, and is decreasing after 1999. The countries most frequently targeted by CVD actions were: India, Republic of Korea, Italy, EC (as a whole) and Canada. The export subsidies in agricultural sector are permitted within the commitments undertaken during the UR. The total financial support provided to agriculture by OECD countries remains high. The liberalization proposals presented during preparations to a new WTO round differ significantly. Under so called « compromise » scenario, the liberalization of agricultural trade and reduction of subsidies may increase world welfare by US$ 13 billion. In the EU an increase in the consumer surplus might be accompanied with a significant reduction in producer surplus.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".