MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2266883631 · doi:10.1017/s1474745603001125

US – Export Restraints: United States – Measures Treating Export Restraints as Subsidies

2003· article· en· W2266883631 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Trade Review · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorld Trade Organization Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubsidyPlaintiffInternational tradeDutyLegislationPrincipal (computer security)Consistency (knowledge bases)BusinessWorld tradeInternational trade lawPolitical scienceLawInternational economicsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the dispute brought before the World Trade Organization (WTO) concerning the United States – Measures Treating Export Restraints as Subsidies (WT/DS 194), euphemistically referred to herein as US – Export Restraints . In this dispute, Canada challenged the US treatment of export restraints under US countervailing duty law and practice. The principal legal focus was therefore on the WTO Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM) Agreement. This is one of a handful of WTO cases where the complainant (Canada) was not challenging the application of a governmental measure (by the US here) but rather the WTO consistency of existing legal measures. Essentially, Canada claimed that certain US legislation along with established practice by the US Department of Commerce constitute a violation of US obligations under the SCM Agreement.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.933
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.278 · 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