MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2460756315 · doi:10.1017/s1474745616000070

<i>United States – Certain Country of Origin Labelling (Cool) Requirements (US–Cool, Article 22.6 – United States)</i>, DS384/DS386

2016· article· en· W2460756315 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Geoffrey Carlson

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Trade Review · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorld Trade Organization Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMandateAuthorizationInternational tradeValue (mathematics)BusinessSettlement (finance)Political scienceLawFinancePayment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On 29 May 2015, the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) adopted the Article 21.5 Appellate Body reports in these disputes, and the reports of the compliance panel as modified by the Appellate Body. The findings adopted by the DSB were that the United States' amended country of origin labelling (COOL) requirements violated Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement and Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 because they continued to accord less favourable treatment to imported livestock than to like domestic livestock. Thereafter, Canada and Mexico both filed requests with the DSB for authorization to suspend concessions or other obligations under Article 22.2 of the DSU. Canada and Mexico sought authorization to suspend concessions and related obligations in the goods sector under the GATT 1994 to an annual value of CAD3.068 billion and USD713 million, respectively. The mandate of the Arbitrator in these proceedings was to ‘determine whether the level of such [proposed] suspension is equivalent to the level of nullification or impairment' to Canada and Mexico.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.192
Threshold uncertainty score0.381

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0090.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0200.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.013

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.278 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Trade ReviewSame topicWorld Trade Organization LawFrench-language works237,207