MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2354034583

The Anti-subsidy Disputes on Timber Trade between the USA and Canada and their Impact and Enlightenment for China

2009· article· en· W2354034583 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Miao Dong-ling

Bibliographic record

VenueBeijing Linye Daxue xuebao · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMetallurgy and Material Science
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubsidyChinaEnlightenmentProduct (mathematics)SoftwoodCountermeasureBusinessInternational tradeEconomicsAgricultural economicsLawPolitical sciencePulp and paper industryEngineeringMarket economy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On the basis of introducing the anti-subsidy disputes on certain softwood timber product trade between the USA and Canada,the paper firstly analyses the key question and main reasons of the disputes,and then introduces the solution and new issues.Finally,it discusses the impact and enlightenment for China.The paper has drawn the following conclusions:①the course of the disputes and its countermeasure are very complex and difficult;②the key issues are whether Canada having implemented the subsidy on certain softwood timber product and how to distinguish and calculate the benefits;③the disputes are apparently derived from the different mode of the timber cutting,and deeply result from conflicts of forest industry interest between the USA and Canada;④the solution is in the form of a comprehensive agreement(Softwood Lumber Agreement) between the USA and Canada,dated 12 September 2006,and it possibly faces new trouble;⑤the disputes make Canada to accelerate exploitation of timber product market in China,and China should pay attention to the anti-subsidy disputes on trade as well.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.239
Threshold uncertainty score0.481

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.249
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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBeijing Linye Daxue xuebaoSame topicMetallurgy and Material ScienceFrench-language works237,207