The Feed-in Tariffs Entanglement: A Comparative Study of the Analytical Approaches Followed by the EU and WTO Judiciary Bodies regarding Renewable Energy Subsidies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this article is to carry out a comparative study exploring the legal approaches of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and EU’s judiciary bodies in assessing the compatibility of the protection of the environment through Feed-in Tariff schemes with the WTO and EU’s subsidy and state aid rules. The benchmark to carry out the legal comparison between both legal systems will be the first ruling concerning renewable energy and dealt by the Appellate Body in the Canada-Renewable Energy case. The comparison between both legal systems has showed the initial intention of the WTO and EU’s judiciary bodies to avoid finding the Feed-in Tariff programme incompatible with the WTO and EU’s subsidy and state aid rules. However, in the latter system, the new policy followed by the Commission may hamper these efforts in its desire to avoid any distortion of competition in the market.
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 | 0.027 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".