MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4240246317 · doi:10.1017/9781108378611.003

European Communities – Trade Description of Scallops, requests by Canada (WT/DS7), Peru (WT/DS12) and Chile (WT/DS14): Report of the Panel (Request by Canada)

2000· book-chapter· en· W4240246317 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2000
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal trade and economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSettlement (finance)Government (linguistics)Order (exchange)International tradeBusinessPolitical scienceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On 19 May 1995, the Government of Canada requested consultations with the European Communities (“EC”) concerning French Order NOR MERP9300051A of 22 March 1993 and its amendments, relating to the official names and permitted trade descriptions of scallops in France. This request was made pursuant to Article XXII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“GATT 1994”), Article 14.1 of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (“TBT Agreement”), and Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (“DSU”). In accordance with Article 4 of the DSU, the request was circulated to Members of the World Trade Organization (“WTO”) on 24 May 1995 (WT/DS7/1). Pursuant to Article 4.11 of the DSU, Chile on 31 May 1995 (WT/DS7/2), and Iceland (WT/DS7/3), Japan (WT/DS7/4) and Peru (WT/DS7/5) on 2 June 1995, requested to be joined in the consultations requested by Canada. On 23 June 1995, the EC informed the Dispute Settlement Body (“DSB”) that it had accepted these requests (WT/DS7/6). Consultations were held in Geneva on 19 June 1995. Consultations failed to settle the dispute and, on 7 July 1995, Canada requested the DSB to establish a panel, at its next meeting, pursuant to Article XXIII of GATT 1994, Article 14 of the TBT Agreement and Articles 4 and 6 of the DSU (WT/DS7/7 and Corr.1). Canada requested that the panel consider and find that the French Order and subsequent amendments are: (a) inconsistent with Article 2 of the TBT Agreement; (b) inconsistent with Articles I and III of GATT 1994; and (c) nullifying and impairing benefits accruing to Canada under the WTO Agreement. On 19 July 1995, pursuant to the request made by Canada, the DSB established a panel with standard terms of reference. The terms of reference of the Panel are the following: “To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by Canada in document WT/DS7/7, the matter referred to the DSB by Canada in that document and to make such findings as will assist the DSB in making the recommendations or in giving the rulings provided for in those agreements”. Australia, Chile, Iceland, Japan, Peru and the United States reserved their rights to participate in the Panel proceedings as third parties.

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)0.001
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 score0.415
Threshold uncertainty score0.836

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0410.010

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.145
Teacher spread0.105 · 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

Citations3
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooks→Same topicGlobal trade and economics→French-language works237,207→