MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4248421276 · doi:10.1017/9781108378765.006

Canada - Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft (WT/DS70): Report of the Appellate Body

2001· book-chapter· en· W4248421276 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2001
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Aviation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAppealSubsidySettlement (finance)Political scienceLawPanel dataInternational tradeBusinessEconomicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION Canada and Brazil both appeal from certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed in the Panel Report, Canada - Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft (the “Panel Report”). The Panel was established by the Dispute Settlement Body (the “DSB”), pursuant to Article 4.4 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (the “ SCM Agreement ”) and Article 6 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the “DSU”), to examine certain alleged subsidies that Brazil contended Canada or its provinces had granted, inconsistently with its obligations under paragraphs 1(a) and 2 of Article 3 of the SCM Agreement , to support the export of civilian aircraft. A brief outline of the factual aspects of the dispute is given at paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2 of the Panel Report. The Panel considered claims made by Brazil relating to the activities of the Export Development Corporation (the “EDC”); the operation of Canada Account; the Canada-Quebec Subsidiary Agreements on Industrial Development; Société de Développement Industriel du Quebec; Technology Partnerships Canada (“TPC”) and the Defence Industry Productivity Programme, as well as the sale to Bombardier Inc. (“Bombardier”), a Canadian corporation, by the Government of Ontario (through the Ontario Aerospace Corporation) of a 49 per cent interest in de Havilland Holdings Inc. The Panel Report was circulated to the Members of the World Trade Organization (the “WTO”) on 14 April 1999. The Panel found “that Canada Account debt financing since 1 January 1995 for the export of Canadian regional aircraft” and “TPC assistance to the Canadian regional aircraft industry” constitute prohibited export subsidies inconsistent with Articles 3.1(a) and 3.2 of the SCM Agreement . The Panel rejected all of Brazil's other claims. The Panel recommended that Canada withdraw the prohibited export subsidies “without delay” and, in any event, “within 90 days”. On 3 May 1999, Canada notified the DSB of its intention to appeal legal interpretations developed by the Panel, and certain issues of law covered in the Panel Report, pursuant to paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the DSU, and filed a Notice of Appeal with the Appellate Body, pursuant to Rule 20 of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review (the “ Working Procedures ”).

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 score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.257

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations8
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicInternational Law and AviationFrench-language works237,207