Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The World Trade Organization (WTO) faces two major challenges to its legitimacy and credibility as an international organization. The first is to make its internal decision-making system more transparent and inclusive, especially for the developing and least developed countries (which now represent the majority of its 147 members). This is the challenge of ‘internal legitimacy’. The second is to respond to external critics – mainly non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and non-state actors – who maintain that the WTO is a closed, non-democratic, bureaucratic, supranational entity. This is the issue of ‘external legitimacy’. The external legitimacy challenge arises, in part, because the WTO administers a complex set of agreements that reach deeply into subjects formerly the exclusive province of national and subnational levels of government, for example, intellectual property, health and safety standards, regulation of services, and subsidies. In addition, the dispute settlement system, with its compulsory jurisdiction and binding decisions, more closely resembles domestic judicial systems than the normal, voluntary, international arbitration mechanisms. With respect to the issue of internal legitimacy, the difficulty with the decision-making procedures in the WTO does not result from defects in the rules, per se, but rather from the inflexible determination of WTO members to take all decisions by consensus. Changing the decision-making rules is not likely to change the attitudes of WTO members. Moreover, it would increase the perceptions of developing countries that they are not included in the important decision-making processes.
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 | 0.020 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".