MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4255597869 · doi:10.1017/9781108379137.003

Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of Milkand the Exportation of Dairy Products – Second Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by New Zealand and the United States (WT/DS103, WT/DS113): Report of the Appellate Body

2005· book-chapter· en· W4255597869 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2005
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorld Trade Organization Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExportationComplaintSubsidyInternational tradeSettlement (finance)BusinessDairy industryPolitical scienceAgricultural economicsEconomyLawEconomicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION Canada appeals certain issues of law and legal interpretations in the Panel Report, Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products – Second Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by New Zealand and the United States (the “Panel Report”). The Panel was established to consider a complaint by New Zealand and the United States that certain measures taken by Canada to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the Dispute Settlement Body (the “DSB”) in Canada – Dairy are not consistent with Canada's obligations under the Agreement on Agriculture and the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (the “ SCM Agreement ” ). In Canada – Dairy , the original panel and the Appellate Body found, inter alia , that Canada provided, through Special Milk Classes 5(d) and 5(e), “export subsidies” within the meaning of Article 9.1(c) of the Agreement on Agriculture . The original panel and the Appellate Body also found that Canada provided these export subsidies in excess of the quantity commitment levels specified in its Schedule to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “Schedule”) and that, therefore, Canada had acted inconsistently with its obligations under Articles 3.3 and 8 of the Agreement on Agriculture . On 27 October 1999, the DSB adopted the original panel and Appellate Body reports. On 23 December 1999, pursuant to Article 21.3(b) of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the “DSU”), Canada, New Zealand, and the United States agreed that the reasonable period of time for Canada to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB would expire on 31 December 2000. On 11 December 2000, the parties agreed to extend this period of time until 31 January 2001. Canada subsequently adopted certain measures with a view to implementing the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. These measures are described in Section II of this Report. Taking the view that certain of these measures were not consistent with Canada's obligations under the Agreement on Agriculture and the SCM Agreement , New Zealand and the United States requested, on 16 February 2001, that the matter be referred to a panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.386

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0090.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0140.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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