Bibliographic record
Abstract
The WTO faces two major challenges to its legitimacy as an international organization. The first is to make its internal decision making system more transparent and inclusive, particularly with respect to developing and least developed country members ('internal legitimacy'). The second is to improve the WTO's relationship with non-state stakeholders and civil society ('external legitimacy'). The challenges to internal legitimacy result not from defects in the rules, which provide for consensus decision making, but rather from the practice and attitudes of the WTO members. In examining external legitimacy, it is the WTO dispute settlement system that has drawn the most attention. The Appellate Body has been criticized for 'over-reaching' and undermining the rights and obligations of WTO members. Applying Thomas Franck's taxonomy for the legitimacy of international systems of rules to the Appellate Body, it has engaged in a process of clarification of the rules which is a legitimate function as an international tribunal and its duty under the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding.
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 | 0.050 | 0.080 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.067 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.026 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".