MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2386719276

On Legitimacy of Section 337 of US Tariff Law under GATT1994

2011· article· en· W2386719276 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zhu Peng-fe

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational business · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorld Trade Organization Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSection (typography)LegitimacyTariffLawPolitical sciencePanel discussionLaw and economicsSociologyBusinessAdvertising
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To judge the legitimacy of Section 337 under GATT1994 correctly will influence the attitude and strategy to it.In 1980s,Canada and Europe Community challenged Section 337 under the system of GATT respectively.The first panel report confirmed legitimacy of Section 337 in that case.The second panel report confirmed legitimacy of Section 337 generally,and at the same time,it pointed out four concrete illegitimacies too.In 1994,US enacted The Uruguay Round Agreements Act of 1994,which revised the four points the second panel report mentioned.After the amendment,Section 337 has been consistent with GATT1994.It is very difficult to sue Section 337 for breach of GATT1994.We might sue it in WTO in combination with concrete case.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.249 · 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.

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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational businessSame topicWorld Trade Organization LawFrench-language works237,207