MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4232112391 · doi:10.1017/9781108378888.002

Canada – Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft Recourse by Brazil to Article 21.5 of the DSU (WT/DS70): Report of the Appellate Body

2003· book-chapter· en· W4232112391 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2003
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInternational Arbitration and Investment Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComplaintSubsidySettlement (finance)Interpretation (philosophy)International tradePolitical scienceBusinessLawPanel dataEconomicsFinanceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION Brazil appeals certain issues of law and legal interpretation in the Panel Report, Canada - Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft, Recourse by Brazil to Article 21.5 of the DSU (the “Article 21.5 Panel Report”). The Article 21.5 Panel was established to consider a complaint by Brazil that certain measures taken by Canada to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the Dispute Settlement Body (the “DSB”), in Canada - Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft (“ Canada - Aircraft ”), were not consistent with Article 3.1(a) of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (the “ SCM Agreement ”). The original panel found, inter alia , that “Canada Account debt financing since 1 January 1995 for the export of Canadian regional aircraft” and “[Technology Partnerships Canada] assistance to the Canadian regional aircraft industry [constitute] export subsidies inconsistent with Article[s] 3.1(a) and 3.2 of the SCM Agreement ”. The original panel concluded that “Canada shall withdraw [these] subsidies … within 90 days.” Before the Appellate Body, Canada appealed certain of the original panel's legal interpretations relating to Technology Partnerships Canada (“TPC”) assistance. Canada did not appeal the original panel's findings relating to the Canada Account. The Appellate Body upheld the original panel's finding that TPC assistance to the Canadian regional aircraft industry constitutes export subsidies inconsistent with Articles 3.1(a) and 3.2 of the SCM Agreement . Canada took steps to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB with respect to both the Canada Account and TPC. Taking the view that these measures were not consistent with Article 3.1(a) of the SCM Agreement , Brazil requested that the matter be referred to the original panel, pursuant to Article 21.5 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the “DSU”). On 9 December 1999, in accordance with Article 21.5 of the DSU, the DSB referred the matter to the original panel. The Article 21.5 Panel Report was circulated to the Members of the World Trade Organization (the “WTO”) on 9 May 2000.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.197

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.181
Teacher spread0.169 · 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

Citations2
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicInternational Arbitration and Investment LawFrench-language works237,207