China’s Accession to Government Procurement Agreement under the Trump Administration’s Trade Policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
China committed to initiate the accession to Government Procurement Agreement when it entered the WTO as a compromise to the requirements made by GPA parties, mostly the developed western countries such as the United States. China started its official attempt to join the GPA on December 28, 2007 by submitting the first offer to the GPA Commission. Six revised offer were then submitted during the past years. The position of the United States and China in international trade changed dramatically since then. This article finds that Trump Administration’s attitude toward China’s accession to GPA is mixed and the US government might impede China’s accession with the analysis on the current American foreign trade policy and the latest development in government procurement in the US’s related international agreements and domestic laws. However, this accession process can only be delayed but not terminated even if the standpoint of the US is proved to be negative due to the theoretical and technical analysis on GPA. Effective and significant measures will be taken by Chinese government since the president Xi Jinping made the statement to accelerate the accession to GPA in Boao Forum in early 2018.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 teacher head, 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".