MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3013905407 · doi:10.1111/reel.12326

The role of international organizations in preventing conflicts between the SPS Agreement and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety

2020· article· en· W3013905407 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jingjing Zhao

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of European Comparative & International Environmental Law · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorld Trade Organization Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTreatyBiosafetyProtocol (science)Political scienceInternational tradeMontreal ProtocolWorld tradeInternational peaceLaw and economicsBusinessLawEconomicsPoliticsBiologyBiotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article analyses how conflicts between the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety – a typical example of the relationship between trade and environmental treaties – are dealt with at the institutional level. It systematically explores the role that the WTO and Protocol organs (may) play in preventing treaty conflicts. Through a theoretical analysis, the article studies how relevant international organizations could contribute to the avoidance of treaty conflicts through actions taken at the institutional level. The doctrinal assertions made in this article are supported by complementary empirical research. The article highlights the extent to which institutional cooperation and coordination between the WTO and Protocol organs are actually happening, and offers suggestions on how conflicts between the treaties can effectively be avoided at the institutional level.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.409

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of European Comparative & International Environmental LawSame topicWorld Trade Organization LawFrench-language works237,207