Coopération réglementaire et accords de commerce
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’une des grandes particularités du régionalisme de troisième génération est d’inclure des mécanismes institutionnels destinés à rapprocher les systèmes réglementaires des participants. Deux accords, l’aecg et le ptp, ont été conclus récemment et tous deux comprennent un chapitre spécifique sur la coopération en matière de réglementation. Ce thème figure également à l’ordre du jour des négociations commerciales entre les États-Unis et l’Union européenne. Il en est le sujet principal, et la principale pierre d’achoppement. Notre article montre le lien qui existe entre les dispositions touchant aux réglementations contenues dans ces nouveaux accords et les débats sur la coopération réglementaire qui se font à d’autres niveaux, notamment à l’omc et à l’ocde. Il revient aussi sur les nouveaux paramètres de cette coopération et compare les dispositions réglementaires contenues dans les textes des deux accords dont nous disposons.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".