MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2773819704 · doi:10.33541/japs.v1i1.498

PROTEKSIONISME SENGKETA DAGANG DALAM PERDAGANGAN INTERNASIONAL: PENDEKATAN NEGOSIASI STUDI KASUS: PROTEKSIONISME AS TERHADAP IMPOR DAGING KANADA

2017· article· en· W2773819704 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Laode Muhamad Fathun

Bibliographic record

VenueJurnal Asia Pacific Studies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndonesian Legal and Regulatory Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProtectionismInternational tradeGlobalizationFree tradeCommercial policyInternational economicsBusinessPolitical scienceEconomicsMarket economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper will explain the problem of dispute in international trade and the role of the World Trade Organization (WTO) as a mediator in the dispute. Economic globalization in the form of international trade relations through free market slogan has a positive and negative impact. That condition’s are the consequences of countries that become members of the WTO to create a competitive market. Trade protectionism is an unfair form of anti-free market policy in the international market. This policy is done to protect a country’s domestic market but on the other hand reduces the spirit of the free market. Protection is often done by taking into account administrative documents, quota counts, product certification, health aspect, labor protection as a way where the state protects its domestic market. One of the policy examples has been made by the United States in practice of importing meat from Canada where WTO as a mediator and international trade regime becomes the dominant actor in the negotiation process. As a result, the United States cannot prove the state's allegation against Canadian meat imports after a special panel was conducted in a session at the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB). Therefore the protectionist policy must be rational and accountable so that no country will be harmed by its impact either in the micro scale (consumer) or the macro scale (country). Keywords: Economic Development, Trade Globalization, Free Trade, Trade Barriers, Protectionism, WTO. Abstrak Makalah ini akan menjelaskan masalah perselisihan dalam perdagangan internasional dan peran World Trade Organization (WTO) sebagai mediator dalam perselisihan tersebut. Globalisasi ekonomi dalam bentuk hubungan perdagangan internasional melalui slogan pasar bebas telah memberikan dampak positif maupun negatif. Kondisi itu merupakan konsekuensi dari negara-negara yang menjadi anggota WTO untuk menciptakan pasar yang kompetitif. Proteksionisme perdagangan merupakan bentuk kebijakan anti-pasar bebas yang tidak adil dalam pasar internasional. Kebijakan ini dilakukan untuk melindungi pasar dalam negeri yang di lain pihak mengurangi semangat pasar bebas. Perlindungan sering dilakukan dengan menerapkan aturan dokumen administrasi, jumlah kuota, sertifikasi produk, aspek kesehatan, proteksi tenaga kerja sebagai cara negara melindungi pasar domestiknya. Salah satu contoh adalah kebijakan yang pernah dilakukan oleh Amerika Serikat terhadap impor daging dari Kanada dimana WTO sebagai mediator dan rezim perdagangan internasional menjadi aktor dominan dalam proses negosiasi. Hasilnya Amerika Serikat tidak bisa membuktikan tuduhan terhadap impor daging Kanada setelah dilakukan panel khusus dalam sidang di Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) atau Badan Penyelesaian Persengketaan WTO. Jadi kebijakan proteksionis harus rasional dan bisa dipertanggungjawabkan sehingga tidak ada satu negara pun yang dirugikan oleh dampak kebijakan tersebut baik pada skala mikro (konsumen) maupun skala makro (negara). Kata kunci: Perkembangan Ekonomi, Globalisasi Perdagangan, Perdagangan Bebas, Hambatan Perdagangan, Proteksionisme, WTO

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.005
Scholarly communication0.0090.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJurnal Asia Pacific StudiesSame topicIndonesian Legal and Regulatory StudiesFrench-language works237,207