MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3123157700 · doi:10.51644/9781554581740-011

Selective Adaptation of WTO Transparency Norms and Local Practices in China and Japan

2009· book-chapter· en· W3123157700 on OpenAlexaff
Ljiljana Biuković

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorld Trade Organization Law
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransparency (behavior)ChinaPoliticsAdaptation (eye)Compliance (psychology)Political sciencePerceptionPolitical economyEconomic systemBusinessLaw and economicsLawEconomicsPsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article focuses on the importance of Chinese and Japanese local practices, their regulatory infrastructure and local cultural norms related to transparency as factors in the selective adaptation of the World Trade Organization norms. International laws can acquire a variety of local meanings that require an understanding of the local history and culture in addition to knowledge of the local economy and laws. This article analyzes the selective adaptation paradigm, which allows for a determination of the extent to which noncompliance or less than full compliance can be attributed to the cultural particularities of states political factors such as the relationship between the central and local authorities. This article argues that a shift in perception of regulatory transparency norms in China and Japan has occurred, and that this shift has had important economic and political consequences internally and externally, which has brought about significant administrative law reforms and improved compliance with international norms.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.162

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWorld Trade Organization LawFrench-language works237,207