MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W412241187

Constraining Public Libraries: The World Trade Organization's General Agreement on Trade in Services

2006· book· en· W412241187 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Samuel E. Trosow, Kirsti Nilsen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorld Trade Organization Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlossaryScope (computer science)General Agreement on Trade in ServicesTrade in servicesIndex (typography)Political scienceInternational tradeLibrary sciencePosition (finance)Service (business)World tradeBusinessFree tradePublic administrationMarketingComputer scienceFinanceWorld Wide Web
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.840
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations3
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWorld Trade Organization LawFrench-language works237,207