MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3134814259 · doi:10.25159/2521-2583/7177

Of Politics and Law: Analysing the Implications of the US-China Trade War on International Law and International Trade Law

2021· article· en· W3134814259 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lindelwa Beaulender Mhlongo

Bibliographic record

VenueSouth African Yearbook of International Law · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorld Trade Organization Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaTrade warOffensiveInternational tradeLawPoliticsInternational trade lawEconomicsInternational lawPolitical scienceManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since taking office in 2017, the president of the United States of America (US), Donald Trump has been on an offensive on the trade front. His administration has levied tariffs on goods coming from China, which retaliated by levying tariffs against the US. This has led to a trade war between these two economies. The economic warring took a turn for the worse with the arrest of Chinese financial executive for Huawei, Meng Wanzhou in Canada on request from the US Department of Justice. She was accused of making false statements to HSBC Bank in 2013 which significantly understated Huawei’s relationship with Skycom. The arrest came after the US levied tariffs on Chinese goods, and also attempted to bar imports of Huawei products. In light of the above, the question that begs for an answer is: Does the US-China trade war undermine the principles of international law and the WTO rules? The article aims to answer the question of the propriety or otherwise of the ongoing US-China trade war within the ambit of international law and the World Trade Organisation economic framework.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.163

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0110.032
Scholarly communication0.0140.011
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSouth African Yearbook of International LawSame topicWorld Trade Organization LawFrench-language works237,207