Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the legal and policy relationship reinforcement amongst international standards for GIs, food safety standards, and other claims of quality or safety. The paper addresses those relationships within the context of international trade agreements protecting GIs, such as the 1994 TRIPS Agreement, the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), and the chapter on intellectual property and geographical indications in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) currently under negotiation. Trade agreements also discipline food safety measures and non-GI indications of quality or safety such as “organic” and “GMO-free.” Accordingly, the paper also considers the extent to which international trade agreements such as the WTO Agreements on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards (SPS Agreement) and Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) might interact with the analysis.
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 | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
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".