LES RELATIONS COMMERCIALES ÉTATS-UNIS / AFRIQUE SUBSAHARIENNE SOUS L’AFRICAN GROWTH AND OPPORTUNITY ACT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Une des critiques aux préférences commerciales en faveur des pays en voie de développement est leur caractère unilatéral. En légitimant leur recours pour réaliser ses objectifs, l’Organisation mondiale du commerce (OMC) n’a fixé que des conditions minimales d’octroi. Ceci fait des préférences commerciales une affaire des pays développés dont les approches différentes créent souvent une discrimination entre pays bénéficiaires de même niveau de développement. L’African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) en est une parfaite illustration. Adoptée en 2000 pour promouvoir le commerce entre l’Afrique subsaharienne et les États-Unis d’Amérique, l’AGOA dépasse le domaine traditionnel d’une loi à cause des relations qu’elle est censée réguler. Ses résultats mitigés et sa contestabilité devant l’Organe de règlement des différends (ORD) de l’OMC doivent amener les bénéficiaires et le donneur à revoir le cadre légal de la coopération.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.000 |
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".