MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2614513353 · doi:10.58948/0738-6206.1799

The WTO Agreements and the Regulation of Energy Markets: Is There a Good FiT?

2017· article· en· W2614513353 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ravi Soopramanien

Bibliographic record

VenuePace Environmental Law Review · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorld Trade Organization Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsElectricityEnergy (signal processing)BusinessMember statesFocus (optics)International economicsEnergy lawInternational tradePolitical scienceLawEconomicsEnvironmental lawEngineeringEuropean union

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper focuses on this second wave of WTO RE disputes. It will assess whether or to what extent policy instruments requiring increased use of RE in national electricity grids, notably FiT, RPS and EA regulations, are consistent with WTO legal obligations. Part II of this paper will discuss energy markets, and the issues that are presented through incorporation of RE into national grids. Part III will shift focus to the WTO. It will introduce the WTO and relevant WTO law, with a particular emphasis on the Appellate Body’s conclusion in its Canada – RE/FiT report. Part IV will assess whether or to what extent WTO Member States can enact FiT, RPS and EA regulations without fear of possible WTO litigation. Part V will conclude with recommendations.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePace Environmental Law ReviewSame topicWorld Trade Organization LawFrench-language works237,207