À PROPOS DES CONVERGENCES ENTRE LE PROTOCOLE DE CARTAGENA ET LES ACCORDS DE L’OMC
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La présente contribution a pour objet de souligner qu’il n’y a pas ipso jure de conflit entre le Protocole de Cartagena et le droit de l’OMC. L’approche du conflit doit être écartée pour mettre en avant des principes et critères de coexistence et de cohérence entre le Protocole de Cartagena et le droit de l’OMC. Pour ce faire, il faut considérer tout d’abord la nature spécifique du Protocole de Cartagena. Celui-ci, contrairement aux autres instruments internationaux relatifs à la protection de l’environnement, est un instrument qui se situe réellement entre le commerce et l’environnement. En outre, certains éléments de compatibilité entre le droit de l’OMC et le Protocole de Cartagena mettent en relief la possibilité de promouvoir un soutien mutuel entre les deux régimes. Une telle approche de soutien mutuel n’est cependant pas toujours de mise, eu égard aux aspects et aux limites du raisonnement du Groupe spécial dans l’affaire Communautés européennes – Mesures affectant l’approbation et la commercialisation de produits biotechnologiques.
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 | 0.014 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.005 |
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".