MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2366281674

Legal Analysis on the Compulsory Labeling System of Genetically Modified Food under the Frame of WTO

2006· article· en· W2366281674 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Xiaoqi Zhu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of International Trade · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorld Trade Organization Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrinciple of legalityGenetically modified organismInternational tradeChinaGovernment (linguistics)Christian ministryAgricultureBusinessDumpingPhytosanitary certificationMarket accessChinese marketGenetically modified foodEconomicsPolitical scienceEconomic growthLawBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since there may be uncertain risks with the Genetically Modified Food, Genetically Modified Food is required to be labeled compulsively in many countries, such as EU countries and China. In May 2003, US, Canada and Argentina suited in WTO against European Community (EC), for EC suspended its confirmation for market access of genetically modified agricultural products since 1998. During the process of this pending case, the EC's compulsory labeling system of Genetically Modified Food is in question as well,and this sounds the alarm for Chinese government. In China, there are two relevant regulations in this field, one by the Ministry of Agriculture, and the other by the Ministry of Sanitary. This paper makes specific analyses on the legality of China's relevant stipulations from the aspects of substance and procedure, according to the relevant agreements of WTO, including the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade and the Article 20 of GATT 1994, and it also makes some recommendations, with the purpose to offer a reference for the decision of relevant government agencies.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.914
Threshold uncertainty score0.171

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of International TradeSame topicWorld Trade Organization LawFrench-language works237,207