Polly wants a Doha deal: what does the trade community think?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After ten years of negotiations, the Doha ‘Round is on the verge of collapse. At this difficult juncture, it is interesting to get a sense of the mood and thinking of the trade community on three key questions1: 1. How serious is the situation? 2. What are the causes of the current stalemate? 3. What are the best solution(s) Two recent fora give an opportunity to analyze the answers of 71 observers to these questions at a crucial time, namely the month preceding the collapse of expectations that Doha might be completed by the end of 2011 (from April 1 to May 2, 2011). The CUTS Trade Forum (2011) triggered by Jagdish Bhagwati's op.ed. ‘Polly Wants a Doha Deal’ offered an open discussion forum where the 57 self-selected respondents could make their remarks with no pre-established format. The VoxEU (2011) e-book ‘Why World Leaders Must Resist the False Promise of a Doha Delay’ gathered short chapters written by 14 authors chosen by the e-book editors and willing to contribute. The respondents (all of them with a long experience in trade matters) include academics (25), former and current negotiators (9), lawyers (4), journalists (3), business (3), national civil servants (2) and trade policy experts (25 in total, of whom six are working in international institutions and nine in think tanks). Participants came from all continents: Africa (1), Asia (6), Europe (23), North America (15), Latin America (6), with a few countries particularly well represented (11 from the USA, 4 from Canada, 3 from Australia). The 17 respondents based in Geneva represent a wide range of nationalities.
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 | 0.019 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.036 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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.
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".