MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4238131132 · doi:10.1017/9781108526241.002

Introduction

2021· book-chapter· en· W4238131132 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Philippe De Baere, Clotilde du Parc, Isabelle Van Damme

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2021
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorld Trade Organization Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDumpingCharterNegotiationPolitical scienceLawInternational tradeConventionBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Concerns about what is characterised today as dumping are not new.1 Initial responses to dumping are found in the Brussels Sugar Convention of 19022 and Canada’s first national anti-dumping law in 1904.3 Other common law countries soon followed.4 The issue of dumping was discussed both at the League of Nations and during the 1933 World Economic Conference.5 During the 1946 post-war negotiations of the ITO Charter, the United States proposed an anti-dumping provision modelled on its own Anti-Dumping Act of 1921. There was general agreement among the negotiating parties on the need to address anti-dumping in the ITO Charter. Already at that time, the focus was on developing disciplines governing the use of anti-dumping laws instead of prohibiting dumping.

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)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.826
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
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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