MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4250938690 · doi:10.1093/jiel/jgv037

JIEL Debate: Transformative Transatlantic Free Trade Agreements?

2015· article· en· W4250938690 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of International Economic Law · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorld Trade Organization Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransatlantic Trade and Investment PartnershipPolitical scienceDemocracyNegotiationGeneral partnershipCivil societyFree tradeCorporate governanceLaw and economicsPoliticsInternational tradePolitical economyPublic administrationEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In view of the increasing economic, political, and legal importance of inter-regional free trade agreements (FTAs), the editors are pleased to present another ‘JIEL debate’, with the following six contributions from diverse perspectives on the Canada–EU Comprehensive Trade and Investment Agreement (CETA) and the ongoing EU–US negotiations on a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). The first contribution by Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann discusses broader governance problems of transatlantic FTAs, such as the contested exclusion of rights and effective judicial remedies of citizens under Article 14.16 CETA and the prevailing paradigm of ‘disconnected, intergovernmental top-down governance’ rather than citizen-driven ‘democratic bottom-up governance’ subject to constitutional restraints. The second contribution by Bernard Hoekman gives a broad overview on the need for, and problems of, fostering regulatory cooperation and promoting its gradual multilateralization through various kinds of WTO agreements. Third, Alberto Alemanno focuses on the institutional structures and democratic challenges of the future TTIP chapter on regulatory cooperation. The fourth contribution by Armand de Mestral discusses, inter alia, the contested CETA investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions in the light of Canada’s practical experiences with ISDS, for instance under Chapter 11 of NAFTA. In a fifth contribution, Marco Bronckers addresses another dimension to the ISDS debate by connecting it to broader discussions in the EU about the possibilities for private parties to invoke bilateral agreements before domestic courts, and the quality of the judiciary. The last contribution by Gary Hufbauer concludes this ‘JIEL invitation’ for more academic and civil society discussions on inter-regional FTAs by giving a detailed overview of the impact of TTIP and of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreements on WTO rules, policies, and future WTO negotiations. We hope these contributions will spur further discussion of these current and important questions.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.260 · 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