Bibliographic record
Abstract
The issue on Labor standard is one of the most contentious items on TPP(Tran Pacific Partnership) negotiation table. Since USA, Canada and New Zealand are more experienced in linking labor standard with Regional Trade Agreement(RTA) and have greater influences on RTA practice of other participants of TPP negotiation, there are reasons to believe that the essence of the negotiation is first the competition and compromise between the representative RTA practices of the three states, and then coming to some proposal that will be accepted by the other participants. As the participants are actually discussing the U.S proposal which is the hardest one among all the proposals, the final content of labor standard will depend on the degree to which US would like to concede. However, with efforts to weaken the obligation and authorization of labor standard provisions, other participants can strive for some results that favor themselves.
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 | 0.040 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".