Constraining Public Libraries: The World Trade Organization's General Agreement on Trade in Services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Part 1 Foreword Part 2 Preface Chapter 3 1. Introduction: What Has GATS Got to Do with Libraries? Chapter 4 2. The Scope of GATS Coverage Chapter 5 3. The GATS Disciplines: Classification and Commitment of Services Chapter 6 4. Do Public Libraries Operate on a Commercial Basis and Compete with Other Service Suppliers? Chapter 7 5. The Perils of Privatization: Commericialization and Privatization of Public Libraries and Library Services Chapter 8 6. Avoiding the Negative Impacts of Trade in Services Chapter 9 7. Advocacy for Public Libraries Chapter 10 8. International Trade Policy as Information Policy Part 11 Appendix A: Pertinent Sections of the GATS Agreement Part 12 Appendix B: Pertinent Sections of the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) Part 13 Appendix C: The IFLA Position on the World Trade Organization (2001) Part 14 Appendix D: Canadian Library Association Letter to Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Part 15 GATS Glossary Part 16 Bibliography Part 17 Index Part 18 About the Authors
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.012 |
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".