L’échapper belle : AMPA ou MPIA. Quatre lettres au secours du système de règlement des différends à l’OMC
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le présent article porte sur l’Arrangement multipartite concernant une procédure arbitrale d’appel provisoire conformément à l’article 25 du Mémorandum d’accord sur le règlement des différends (ci-après, l’AMPA), visant à pallier la paralysie de l’Organe d’appel de l’Organisation mondiale du commerce. Suivant un bref rappel historique, l’AMPA et ses annexes seront, dans un premier temps, étudiés. Dans un second temps, l’AMPA sera analysé à l’aune du règlement des différends « classique », et quelques questions de politique judiciaire suscitées par cet arrangement provisoire seront relevées. Bien qu’il calque à maints égards les procédures ayant cours devant l’Organe d’appel, l’AMPA intègre certaines innovations entre autres issues du Walker process, lequel proposait diverses solutions aux récriminations de certains Membres envers l’Organe d’appel.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.006 |
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".