The Incompatibility of Science and Trade at the International Level
Bibliographic record
Abstract
International trade rules based on science are not functioning efficiently. Considerable effort was put forth in the 20th century to enable politics to be removed from the frameworks that governed international trade. Some degree of success was witnessed from these efforts as numerous institutions (i.e. SPS/WTO, IPPC, OECD, Codex) were founded or their roles expanded. These institutions were established on the premise that science-based frameworks were essential to the efficient functioning of international commerce. The first decade of the 21st century would seem to suggest that these institutions are floundering and that the role of science as the basis of international trade rules is on the decline. The evidence of international trade inefficiencies are witnessed in the case of products derived from biotechnology. The most recent example of this is the absolute halt in the international trade of flax from Canada to Europe after the trace detection of a trait that was approved for food and feed use in Canada but not in Europe. Examples of this can also be found in corn, soybeans and rice. The success of international institutions in dealing with transformative technologies such as biotechnology has thus far been rather dismal. This paper focuses on the fundamental causes for the disruption of international trade and endeavours to provide insights into how to move forward.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".