Bibliographic record
Abstract
This contribution illustrates some unresolved issues and tensions that characterize the way the WTO deals with renewable energy subsidies. Indeed, the indisputable urgency to address the negative impacts of climate change on the one hand, and the use of subsidies to boost and support a country’s renewable energy sector on the other, provide momentum to better define the legal framework offered by the World Trade Organization (WTO). It is fundamental to ascertain whether the current framework represents an adequate model to address renewable energy subsidies, or whether a more flexible interpretation of WTO Agreements toward sustainable development and the protection of the environment should be adopted instead. In view of that, this paper carefully investigates the evolution of the WTO subsidies disciplines, focusing in particular on the approach of the WTO towards renewable energy subsidies. This article is divided in three sections. The first one offers an overview of WTO disputes involving subsidies in the renewable energy sector, the second one focuses on the recent decisions in the Canada – Renewable Energy and Canada – Feed-in Tariff Program disputes and on some important issues they raise, while in the last one we draw our conclusions.
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 | 0.017 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".