MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158979425

가축법 개정의 무역통상규범적 평가

2009· article· ko· W2158979425 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
정인교, 조정란

Bibliographic record

Venue무역학회지 · 2009
Typearticle
Languageko
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture, Soil, Plant Science
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)International tradeInternational lawOrder (exchange)Political scienceGuidelineTreatyLawBusinessPoliticsInternational trade lawFinance
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The quarantine standards and inspection services on US beef was one of the hottest issues in Korea 2008. Opposing parties proposed the revision of the law for the prevention of animal disease such as bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), with the uprising concern over the food safety, espcially for the imported US beef. This issue became to dealt politically and a barometer on the trade policy direction. After a fierce discussion in the National Assembly, political parties agreed to revise the law partially. Korea became to enforce its new quarantine inspection standard March 2009, but the government of Canada called on the WTO to address Korea's new guideline for the importation of beef one month later. That is, recent revision of the law became an international trade dispute issue. This paper reviews the international guideline for the beef inspection, which is the WTO SPS, and evaluates the recent revision of Korea's law. In conclusion, the law lacks in the penalty when the administration does not abide by the new guideline of the law, implying the potentialities for political disturbance. As one of conclusions, this paper points that Korea be one of strong supporters for the WTO trading system, and its laws for trade should abide by related international rules, in spite of strong domestic politics. The beef inspection law should be revised into the original one in order to avoid any further trade dispute.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.791
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.003

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.195 · 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.

Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue무역학회지Same topicAgriculture, Soil, Plant ScienceFrench-language works237,207