MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206963000 · doi:10.1093/jiel/jgac001

Straining the Spaghetti Bowl: Re-Evaluating the Regulation of Preferential Rules of Origin

2022· article· en· W4206963000 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christian Delev

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of International Economic Law · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorld Trade Organization Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSt Catharine's College, University of Cambridge
KeywordsProtectionismInternational tradeRules of originDiscretionInternational economicsEconomicsFree tradeRegional tradePolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Preferential rules of origin (PROOs) are a hallmark of the modern Regional Trade Agreement network. However, the ever-rising use of PROOs has revealed their dual economic function: to prevent trade deflection from occurring, and to export domestic State protectionism to the regional level. This paper challenges existing scholarship and reassesses the WTO disciplines applicable to PROOs. Using the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement as a case-study, it examines the ways in which PROOs have obstructed trade liberalization at the regional level in favour of embedding protectionism in certain sectors. The disciplines under Article III:4 GATT, Annex II of the Agreement on Rules of Origin, and the Trade Facilitation Agreement are then shown to limit Members’ discretion in adopting PROOs. Finally, the internal and external conditions of Article XXIV GATT further restrain the extent to which Members may lawfully export their domestic protectionism through Regional Trade Agreements. Crucially, violations of the restraints under Article XXIV GATT are unlikely to be justified based on Article XX(d) GATT.

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)0.071
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.106
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 score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.375

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0710.106
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.025
Scholarly communication0.0150.011
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of International Economic LawSame topicWorld Trade Organization LawFrench-language works237,207