An Evaluation of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement: Market Access and Trading Rules
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) agreement was signed on November 15, 2020. This marks the formal conclusion of the world's largest free trade agreement in terms of population and economic scale. The RCEP agreement covers new liberalization commitments in goods, services, investment, and movement of natural persons, and addresses some emerging behind‐the‐border trade issues, to forge more transparent, open, and inclusive trade rules. Its aim is to build a comprehensive, modern, inclusive, and high‐quality free trade agreement. This paper summarizes the framework and highlights of the RCEP agreement, measures the extent of tariff reduction from various perspectives, makes a quantitative assessment of the level of service trade liberalization of the member states adopting positive list commitments, and makes an in‐depth analysis of trade rules and provisions in the RCEP agreement. Furthermore, this paper also makes a comprehensive comparison of main provisions among the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans‐Pacific Partnership, RCEP, and US‐Mexico‐Canada Agreement. The paper concludes with policy recommendations for China to promote the implementation of the RCEP agreement.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it