Le régionalisme commercial. Y a-t-il encore un pilote dans l’avion ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’article porte sur les règles qui entourent les accords commerciaux régionaux. Après avoir retracé les débats qui ont entouré la reconnaissance des unions douanières et des zones de libre-échange d’abord dans la Charte de La Havane puis au GATT, l’auteur revient sur les règles actuelles. Elles ont peu changé et sont devenues inefficaces. Les accords commerciaux régionaux se sont non seulement multiplié, en marge du système de l’OMC, mais, en couvrant toujours plus de domaines, ils s’en éloignent toujours davantage. La négociation, en parallèle, de plusieurs méga-accords inter-régionaux vient amplifier le problème. L’auteur revient sur les propositions qui ont été avancées pour y remédier et rétablir l’autorité de l’OMC, mais comment reprendre la main quand on n’a pas le monopole de la négociation et que rien n’avance vraiment ?
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".