MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2329458654 · doi:10.18696/reunir.v1i2.26

UMA DISCUSSÃO DA QUESTÃO AMBIENTAL NO COMÉRCIO INTERNACIONAL

2015· article· pt· W2329458654 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rafaelle Gomes Firmino, Márcia Batista da Fonsêca

Bibliographic record

VenueREUNIR Revista de Administração Contabilidade e Sustentabilidade · 2015
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural and Food Sciences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceBusinessAgricultural scienceWelfare economicsEconomicsEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Este trabalho faz um levantamento acerca da Legislação Ambiental que vigora no Comércio Internacional e os prováveis efeitos da adoção dessas medidas na redução dos fluxos de comércio. É uma pesquisa que descreve a adoção de medidas restritivas ao comércio de acordo com as exigências ambientais, ou barreiras verdes, com relação as regras da OMC, utilizando como base as regras existentes no Acordo sobre Barreiras Técnicas ao Comércio (TBT) e no Acordo sobre a Aplicação de Medidas Sanitárias e Fitossanitárias (SPS). O Comitê sobre Comércio e Meio Ambiente (CTE) compatibiliza as regras do comércio mundial com os instrumentos de política ambiental, ficando a seu cargo os acordos ambientais multilaterais (MEAs). Os principais MEAs com efeito sobre o comércio são: Protocolo de Quioto, o protocolo de Montreal, a convenção da Basiléia e o CITES. Percebe-se que a aprovação dos acordos multilaterais ambientais garante a conservação dos recursos naturais exauríveis, porém é importante que essas “barreiras verdes” não sejam usadas como uma forma de discriminação ao comércio ampliando o protecionismo.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0070.010
Scholarly communication0.0190.013
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0280.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueREUNIR Revista de Administração Contabilidade e SustentabilidadeSame topicAgricultural and Food SciencesFrench-language works237,207