Quo Vadis External Trade Policy of the European Union? Exporting its Own Values or Being a Point-Guard within the Multilateral Trading System?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
European Union (EU) has a very distinctive status within the multilateral trading system and thus is found worthwhile to examine in many respects.It has been not only a prominent actor and a contributor of the multilateral trading system since the fundamentals of the system were set by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) but also the chief executer of its own preferential trade relations compatible with the GATT and its successor, World Trade Organization (WTO).External trade policy has always been one of the privileged common policies of the EU and commitment to the multilateral trading system has constituted the core of it.Upon the pending of the Doha Development Agenda (DDA), the EU has paved the way to deepen its trade relations with the other prominent actors of the multilateral trading system, namely the US, Canada, Japan and South Korea.These nouveau trade relations do not simply embrace trade but also investments, services, competition, etc. and thus favorably referred to new-age partnerships.Essentially, they constitute the pillars of the EU's new-born Trade for All Strategy.Then, here come two inter-linked, substantial questions: Does the new external trade policy of the EU that is figured out by the Trade for All Strategy in general and the new-age partnerships in particular, compatible with the multilateral trading system?Would the EU by-pass the multilateral trading system and export its own values via new-age partnerships or be a point guard in the enhancement of the system?The aim of this paper is to make a contribution in responding these substantial questions.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".