MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4256013541 · doi:10.54648/gtcj2020022

Proving FTA Preferential Tariff Eligibility: The Evidentiary Burden in Canada

2020· article· en· W4256013541 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jean-Marc Clément

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Trade and Customs Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEntitlement (fair division)TariffAgency (philosophy)Rules of originBurden of proofOrder (exchange)Subject (documents)Administration (probate law)Political scienceLaw and economicsBusinessLawInternational tradeEconomicsComputer scienceFinanceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As is the case with most free trade agreements, importers simply claim preferential tariff eligibility at the time of import. This claim can later be subject to verification by the customs administration in view of determining if it was valid. Proving preferential tariff entitlement requires assembling and presenting relevant facts and documents that support the claim. But just how much evidence is necessary in order to discharge that burden? In Canada there has always been a disconnect between what the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) deems necessary in the course of an origin verification and what the courts find satisfactory in the course of a judicial review. What follows are certain illustrations of that disconnect and how it usually gets resolved by Canadian courts. Origin verification, judicial review, NAFTA, burden of proof, non-originating status, eligibility considerations, evidence

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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.077
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.812

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.077
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0180.013
Scholarly communication0.0200.005
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0080.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.251 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Trade and Customs JournalSame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207