Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Encouraged by the success of surging exports following its first free trade agreement (FTA) with Chile in 2004, South Korea unveiled an ambitious plan to push for FTAs with more than fifteen countries by 2007. To achieve its goal, South Korea has launched negotiations with fifty trading partners worldwide. It is believed that the FTAs would ensure more benefits for South Korea's export-driven economy. After all, South Korea is the world's eleventh largest economy. According to Trade Minister Kim Hyun-Chong, a long-term strategy to expand trade through a liberalized economy with less trade barriers is necessary for the South Korean economy, as it is presently facing unfavourable external conditions, such as soaring oil prices, the stronger won against the U.S. dollar, and more non-tariff trade barriers. Therefore, the FTA is the solution for South Korean companies to gain access in foreign markets. However, South Korea has lagged far behind other members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in free trade accords. Before South Korea concluded its accord with Chile in March 2004, it was one of only two WTO members not party to any FTA, the other being Mongolia. Presently, the country is in negotiations to eliminate trade barriers with sixteen nations, including the ASEAN states, Canada, the four-member European Free Trade Association (EFTA), and Japan. Joint research is being conducted with seven nations, including India, Mexico, and Russia, on the feasibility of free trade negotiations. Moreover, South Korea has also established plans for negotiations with twenty-seven nations, such as the United States, China, and the European Union (EU). South Korea and ASEAN have a long history of economic partnerships. They first established sectoral dialogue relations in November 1989. South Korea was accorded Full Dialogue Partner status by ASEAN at the Twenty-fourth ASEAN Ministerial Meeting (AMM) in July 1991 in Kuala Lumpur.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.003 |
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".