Bibliographic record
Abstract
The opportunity to achieve the substantial benefits from the “once‐in‐a‐generation” reduction in the support and protection of the agriculture sector under the Doha Development Agenda appears to be slipping away. The paper outlines a series of factors for the delay in the negotiations. The author contends that if developed countries had been more proactive on a trade and development agenda, then there could have been an agreement reached several months ago. Such a developmentally friendly agenda could involve (i) better Special and Differential Treatment on market access and more flexible market access protection for developing countries, (ii) a binding commitment to increase aid for trade assistance, (iii) more resources to provide human resource capacity building in export marketing in developing countries, (iv) an agreement for the termination of trade distorting domestic support, and (v) revisions to the SPS Agreement to accommodate the concerns of developing countries. A developmentally friendly agreement would likely still allow the majority of the Doha Round gains to be realized by developed countries. The paper also tracks the developments, describes the progress, and reviews the empirical estimates of the expected global impact of the eight‐year Doha Round negotiations. L'occasion de profiter des avantages substantiels que pourrait procurer la réduction « unique » du soutien et du protectionnisme agricoles dans le cadre du Programme de Doha pour le développement semble s'échapper. Le présent article expose une série de facteurs responsables du retard dans les négociations. L'auteur soutient que si les pays développés avaient été davantage proactifs quant à l'élaboration d'un programme d'échanges et de développement, un accord aurait pu être conclu il y a plusieurs mois déjà. Un programme soucieux du développement pourrait inclure: i) un « Traitement spécial et différencié» amélioré sur l'accès au marché et une protection de l'accès au marché plus souple pour les pays en développement; ii) un engagement obligatoire pour accroître l'aide au commerce; iii) davantage de ressources pour accroître le renforcement des capacités des pays en développement dans le domaine de la commercialisation des exportations; iv) un accord pour mettre fin au soutien interne qui distord les échanges; v) des modifications à l'Accord MSP pour répondre aux préoccupations des pays en développement. Un accord soucieux du développement permettrait probablement aux pays développés de réaliser la majorité des gains du cycle de Doha. Le présent article fait état des développements, décrit les progrès et examine les estimations empiriques des répercussions globales de la huitième année de négociations du cycle de Doha.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".