The WTO Reference Paper meets EU common regulatory policy in CETA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
International trade and investment in telecommunications are governed by the World Trade Organization's (WTO) General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) and its Annex and Reference Paper (RP) on telecommunications. This paper discusses whether the 25-year old WTO framework is still fit for purpose. It makes two contributions to the literature. First, it offers a systematic comparison between the provisions in the RP, the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) and EU common regulatory framework. GATS builds on an outdated classification of telecommunications which is repeated in the CETA. The RP obliges countries to regulate interconnection, which is also largely repeated in CETA, although regulatory forbearance is permitted. CETA does not offer new market access in telecommunications to either party. Second, the paper investigates empirically whether binding regulation in trade agreements strengthen market openness, measured by imports of telecommunications services, and finds that it does not. The paper concludes that trade agreements may not be suitable for international cooperation on telecommunications regulation. Trade agreements run the risk of making regulation hostage to unrelated trade policy issues while adopting the RP runs a risk of legal obligations to over-regulate telecommunications.
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 | 0.011 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.023 |
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".