MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4235370307 · doi:10.1017/9781108378857.002

Canada - Certain Measures Affecting the Automotive Industry (WT/DS139, WT/DS142): Report of the Appellate Body

2002· book-chapter· en· W4235370307 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2002
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorld Trade Organization Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutomotive industryAppealComplaintGovernment (linguistics)TariffPanel dataOrder (exchange)DutyMeasure (data warehouse)BusinessEngineeringPolitical scienceLawInternational tradeEconomicsFinanceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION Canada, the European Communities and Japan appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations in the Panel Report, Canada - Certain Measures Affecting the Automotive Industry (the “Panel Report”). The Panel was established to consider a complaint by the European Communities and Japan with respect to a Canadian measure which provides a duty exemption for the importation of certain automobiles, buses and other specified commercial vehicles (“motor vehicles”). According to the Panel, the Canadian measure consists of the Motor Vehicles Tariff Order, 1998 (the “MVTO 1998”) and Special Remission Orders (the “SROs”) promulgated by the Government of Canada. Pertinent aspects of the Canadian measure are described in Section II below. The Panel considered claims by the European Communities and Japan that the measure is inconsistent with Article I:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “GATT 1994”); with Article III:4 of the GATT 1994; with Article 2 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures (the “ TRIMs Agreement ” ); with the prohibition on export subsidies under Article 3.1(a) of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (the “ SCM Agreement ” ); with the prohibition on subsidies contingent on the use of domestic over imported goods under Article 3.1(b) of the SCM Agreement ; with Article II of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (the “GATS”); and with Article XVII of the GATS. The Panel Report was circulated to the Members of the World Trade Organization (the “WTO”) on 11 February 2000. The Panel concluded as follows: (a) that Canada acts inconsistently with Article I:1 of the GATT 1994; (b) that the inconsistency with Article I:1 of the GATT 1994 is not justified under Article XXIV of the GATT 1994; (c) that Canada acts inconsistently with Article III:4 of the GATT 1994, as a result of the application of the Canadian value added requirements; (d) that the European Communities and Japan failed to demonstrate that Canada acts inconsistently with Article III:4 of the GATT 1994, as a result of the application of the production- to-sales ratio requirements; (e) that Canada acts inconsistently with Article 3.1(a) of the SCM Agreement ; (f) that the European Communities and Japan failed to demonstrate that Canada acts inconsistently with its obligations under Article 3.1(b) of the SCM Agreement ; (g) that Canada acts inconsistently with Article II of the GATS;

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)0.002
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.293

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0080.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0070.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Citations10
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicWorld Trade Organization LawFrench-language works237,207