MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3109457579 · doi:10.1111/ilrs.12176

Comercio y trabajo a la luz del pluralismo del Órgano de Apelación de la OMC

2020· article· es· W3109457579 on OpenAlexaff
Joanna Langille

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Internacional del Trabajo · 2020
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Labor and Employment Law
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Resumen Los Acuerdos de la Organización Mundial del Comercio (OMC) pueden limitar la capacidad de sus Estados Miembros para reaccionar ante violaciones de los derechos y normas (internacionales) del trabajo tanto en su territorio como en el extranjero. Se expone aquí cómo el Órgano de Apelación de la OMC ha interpretado esos Acuerdos con un enfoque «pluralista», preservando el derecho de los Miembros a legislar, ampliando el alcance de las excepciones generales y atenuando los efectos desreguladores de ciertas disposiciones. Numerosas medidas de protección del trabajo podrían pues ser compatibles con las obligaciones de no discriminación del derecho mercantil internacional.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.305 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista Internacional del TrabajoSame topicInternational Labor and Employment LawFrench-language works237,207