MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Labour Mobility and the WTO: The Limits of GATS Mode 4

2012· article· en· W2166325053 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

VenueInternational Migration · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal trade and economics
Canadian institutionsDawson College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNegotiationTransparency (behavior)Market accessBusinessMultilateral trade negotiationsInternational tradeInternational economicsGeneral Agreement on Trade in ServicesDeveloping countryEconomicsWorld tradeEconomic growthPolitical scienceLawAgriculture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper explores the development of the labour mobility provisions within the multilateral GATT–WTO system in parallel with smaller regional and bilateral agreements. Because expanded labour mobility provisions have failed to generate a critical mass of support within the WTO, it is argued that developing countries seeking market access for lower‐skilled workers are better off seeking alternative venues, even though this is a more costly strategy. At the same time, it is useful for states to continue labour mobility negotiations within the WTO system because the regime serves as an important forum for the negotiation of common administrative processes and definitions. Multilateral efforts to increase transparency and reduced administrative costs will not only help to improve effective market access for commitments already in place, but will increase confidence in the ability of the WTO system to contribute to the management of global labour mobility.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.666
Threshold uncertainty score0.146

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.189 · 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