An Ethical View on International Trade Agreements TTIP and CETA in the Republic of Croatia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The topic of TTIP and CETA was almost completely suppressed in Croatia.1 Those are very important international agreements which could have far-reaching consequences both for the world and individual countries. Maybe Croatia, as well as the EU, is not so much involved in the whole story concerning TTIP. However, CETA is an agreement signed by Canada with the European Union. Therefore, after the approval of the European Parliament, EU provisions, such as the customs policy, can immediately start to apply, which means abolishing duty rates for 99% of the products as early as 1 January 2017. The decision on the CETA conclusion on behalf of Croatia was initiated by the technical Government of Tihomir Orešković at its last session.2 The superficial interpretation of these certainly not harmless agreements is of too little interest to both philosophers and theologians in Croatia, and except for the Centre of Excellence for Integrative Bioethics’3 reaction concerning this question, other philosophical-theological discussions seem to be lacking. The impression is that philosophers and theologians feel these issues do not concern them. In this paper we will try to make clear that the above-mentioned international agreements concern both philosophers and theologians, and that they certainly should, from their field, from the theoretical level, engage in the discussion of the said agreements.
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 | 0.021 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".