MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4248288025 · doi:10.1163/22119000-01402004

Should “the Perspective of South-North Contradictions” Be “Abandoned”? – Focusing on “2012 Sino-Canada BIT”

2013· article· en· W4248288025 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
An Chen, E-Nuo Gu

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of World Investment & Trade · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Political and Economic Relations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPaceChinaNegotiationPerspective (graphical)Bit (key)Investment (military)Meaning (existential)Political scienceProcess (computing)Developing countryForeign direct investmentEconomyInternational tradeEconomicsEconomic growthGeographyLawComputer scienceEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rapid development of China’s economy not only has upgraded its international economic rank, but also has accelerated its pace of outward investment. Meanwhile, China and several dozens of other developing countries are stuck in a disadvantageous status caused by consequent remarks, such as that “China is no longer a developing country”, that “the perspective of South-North Contradictions is already outdated and should be abandoned during the process of concluding BITs and establishing international economic rules in general”, etc. However, the rationale and accuracy of these remarks as well as the exact meaning hidden behind all remain open to question. This Article, from the source and stream of South-North Contradictions and modern BITs, focusing on the typical example of two core provisions selected from the newly concluded 2012 Sino-Canada BIT , endeavors to demonstrate that the “perspective of South-North Contradictions” cannot and should not be abandoned during the process of BIT negotiations and establishing international economic rules in general.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.648
Threshold uncertainty score0.880

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.219 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of World Investment & TradeSame topicGlobal Political and Economic RelationsFrench-language works237,207