MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139713606 · doi:10.1080/0969229042000252882

Deliberative democracy and the WTO

2004· article· en· W2139713606 on OpenAlexaff
Ilan Kapoor

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of International Political Economy · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorld Trade Organization Law
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeliberationLegitimacyPoliticsDemocracyDeliberative democracyPerspective (graphical)Power (physics)Law and economicsDemocratic legitimacyPolitical scienceEconomic JusticeGlobal justiceWorld tradePolitical economySociologyEconomicsLawInternational trade

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Habermas's rules-based deliberative democratic perspective underscores issues of power, legitimacy and justice. The article deploys this perspective to reveal how the lack of legitimating procedures and rational deliberation at the World Trade Organization (WTO) yields power politics and unjust outcomes. It examines the rule-making process in the successive trade Rounds that led up to the WTO, as well as the politics of the organisation's rule-application and consensus-making practices.

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 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)0.001
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 score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score0.606

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.300 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations46
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of International Political EconomySame topicWorld Trade Organization LawFrench-language works237,207