Bibliographic record
Abstract
The essay starts from the observation that attempts to formalize negotiations in the World Trade Organization (WTO) have consistently spawned new forms of informality, such as the holding of meetings as ‘chairperson's consultations’ which do not require the adoption of an agenda, or the emergence of new types of ‘unofficial’ documents. The essay sketches the resulting layers of formality/informality and attempts to account for the survival of informality in the WTO. The most commonly offered explanation for the persistence of informality in WTO negotiations is that it serves to facilitate and disguise the exercise of power. The essay argues instead that formal and informal meetings serve essentially different functions. Informality can provide opportunities for productive interventions, alliances, and performances that are precluded in more formal settings. Gradations of formality/informality offer different avenues for WTO Members to talk to each other and to their domestic and international audiences.
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 | 0.016 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".