MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3145241299

Protectionism is "Alive and Well"- Agriculture in the EU-Canada Trade Agreement

2015· article· en· W3145241299 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
William A. Kerr, Jill E. Hobbs

Bibliographic record

Venue2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural safety and regulations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProtectionismInternational tradeEuropean unionLiberalizationFree tradeMarket accessBusinessInternational economicsTrade barrierCommercial policyAgricultureEconomicsGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After six years of secret negotiations the agreed text of the trade agreement between the European Union and Canada was released in September 2014. The Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) must still be ratified by the respective legislatures. Agricultural trade was expected to be a contentious issue in the negotiations with both Canada and the EU having sensitive areas where liberalization would be difficult. In Canada, the domestic policy for dairy and poultry -supply management- requires support from high trade barriers. In the EU, some SPS barriers are non-negotiable- GMOs and the use of growth hormones in beef production. The eventual bargain leaves these trade inhibiting measures largely intact. Some liberalization was achieved in other areas such as recognition of EU geographical indications in Canada, reduced barriers to sales of EU wine, increased market access for EU cheeses and expansion in EU TRQs for wheat, hormone free beef and pork.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.533

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0160.008
Scholarly communication0.0160.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, ItalySame topicAgricultural safety and regulationsFrench-language works237,207