Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper begins with a puzzle about the differing contributions of the OECD and the WTO to the evolution of international trade law before suggesting that the resolution might lie in their differing capacity to support social learning and mutual obligation. The paper then looks back on the contributions the organization has made to the evolution of trade law over the past half century, with particular reference to the vital development of the ideas that made the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations possible. This look back at the different strengths of the OECD and the WTO supports a conclusion that the OECD shapes trade law, but it is not a site for the codification of trade law, which happens in the WTO. The OECD proves to be an invaluable forum for social learning, for the development of consensual knowledge about how the world works. The paper concludes that the OECD’s ability to facilitate the development of consensual understanding may prove invaluable in working with the emerging economies on the issues some call the new trade policy.
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 | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".