MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3114986408

The post-Brexit negotiations and the level playing field criterion

2020· article· en· W3114986408 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueDPCE Online · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRegional Development and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrexitNegotiationCompetition (biology)European unionLiberalizationPolitical scienceInternational tradeLevel playing fieldField (mathematics)EconomicsState (computer science)International economicsLawComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: I negoziati post-Brexit ed il criterio del level playing field – On 31 January 2020, the United Kingdom left the European Union and phase two of Brexit, which will be dedicated to the definition of the future relations between the Parties, officially started. This contribution presents the main features of the future trade relations between the UK and the EU, as they emerge from phase one of Brexit. Then, it analyzes two paradigms (market integration and trade liberalization) and four relevant models, which currently link the EU to some of its most important commercial partners, namely Norway, Switzerland, Turkeyand Canada. Finally, it focuses on the “level playing field” criterion, which relates to the standards to be applied by the Parties in their future relations with regard to competition policy and State aids, environmental protection, social and labor standards, fiscal policies.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.888
Threshold uncertainty score0.714

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.271 · 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